I've heard that particular counterargument before, and I'll admit it's a compelling one. I've thought a lot about it, and come to the conclusion that - even overlooking the difference between morality and justice - there is a deontological difference between stabbing someone and stumbling and accidentally cutting them.
In the former act, you're violating the negative duties (e.g. do not perform acts of harm). The latter act, however, is the person coming to harm as the result of circumstance, the same as if a tree branch just happened to break off when they're under it; it's not, from a moral standpoint, considered to be an action on your part.
To put it another way, I think that the idea of saying that the two scenarios are equivalent is a consequentialist argument (e.g. "the results of what happened are that the person was stabbed; how they ended up stabbed is immaterial") rather than a deontological one.
Yes, but you've largely missed my point.
I said you won't get broad agreement on that. However much *YOU* may have adopted a deontological structure for your personal ethics, for the most part the rest of the world is not purist. If you are trying to decide for yourself if you consider an act to be ethical*, you may, of course, use whatever framework you wish**. When you're trying to decide if someone else will think it is ethical, you must use their framework, not your own.
And if you're somehow trying to prove that your framework is the One True Ethics... well, that's close enough to religion as makes no odds, and we should stop now.
...I was attempting (poorly, I realize now) to say "whether the consequences are those that were deliberately sought, or came about as an unexpected result, is irrelevant, because we're focusing on the act itself and not the consequences."
Er, does that not depend upon what rules/duties your particular deontological system uses? If your (admittedly oversimplified) rule, for example, is "Do no harm," then sure as anything the consequences matter, as "harm" is a consequence of an action! Some deontological philosophers will hold that intent and consequences don't matter, others will say they do.
Me, I'm not a purist. I'm not going to just accept a particular set of rules - I'll question them. If the consequences to other people are not themselves part of the basis for your rules, well, then I'm not really interested in them.
*I am noting, but not addressing, the question of whether morals and ethics are actually equivalent - for now, take the words in whichever way suits.
** Not precisely true - what with that whole "living in a society, and have to get along with everyone else" thing.