Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 3290848" data-attributes="member: 307">No, it doesn't. But it is a good starting point, especially in matters like this since law is tied up with morality standards - upon whom is it appropriate to place blame. Foreseeability is a good place to start figuring out how to draw that line, since if you don't, then every act is likely to be an evil act, because some consequence down the road will turn out to be evil.This is incorrect. For example, the law does not prosecute those who are unable (for whatever reason) to follow the law. It excuses many actions because their intent was good, even though the same action taken under different cirucmstances would make the act unlawful and thus prosecutable. For example, if I accidentally shoot an innocent bystander in the course of attempting to defend someone from death (say, by missing while trying to shoot the attacker), the law in most jurisdictions excuses my action and I am not culpable.Negligence of the law is often not an excuse. But that is not always true. And, of course, we are not talking about law per se. We are talking about morality - and in virtually every code of morality, consequences are important, but so are intentions.All of this is interesting, and generally ture. Yet it has no bearing on whether or not determinations of good and evil are bounded by a foreseeability standard.</blockquote>