Interesting philosophical questions :). I think the goodness of the act is determined (partly? mostly?) by the intent at the time of its inception. In poker, y

Interesting philosophical questions :). I think the goodness of the act is determined (partly? mostly?) by the intent at the time of its inception. In poker, you don't judge a decision as good or bad based on if you eventually win the hand. It's based on the information you had at the time. If you go all in with a 2-7 offsuit (worst hand) and get lucky and win, it was still a bad decision -- you shouldn't have done it, even though it turned out ok. Flip it on its head. Two hunters are in the woods and shoot recklessly into a bush. Hunter A happens to hit a person hiding there. Hunter B happens to hit a tree. Why does the random presence of a stranger make one act less bad than the other? Two assassins shoot their victims. Victim A dies. Victim B clings to life, struggling greatly and manages to survive. Why does one get "murder" and the other "attempted murder?". Why does the victim's painful struggle to live make the original act less bad? It's a bit like that. The #2 case was done out of caring, and it was bad luck that it collapsed. Clearly, if he had known the building would collapse he wouldn't have built it that way. For #1... well, if the cost of the building collapsing was less than the money saved, he'd do it. I think intent matters because we can't really control outcomes.