3 ms·

I'm going to disagree with you. > A tiger can also quite actively exploit weaknesses and imbalances for the harm of its prey, yet we don't judge the animal as

by tpxl 4y ago

I'm going to disagree with you. > A tiger can also quite actively exploit weaknesses and imbalances for the harm of its prey, yet we don't judge the animal as malicious A tiger is not malicious when it harms prey, because the intent is survival, and it cannot have that without harm. The survival of abusive CEOs and managers does not require harm to be done to anyone, yet they do it (sometimes for no tangible benefit). > To have "malice", you need "intent" You need not intend for your actions to be malicious, for them to be. If you are willfully ignorant of malicious consequences of your actions, your actions are still malicious. This is why "I didn't know what I was doing was harming people" defense doesn't fly, not in the legal sense and not in the moral. At some point it is your duty to determine the consequences of your actions, and something being your job is definitely over that threshold.

svnt 4y ago
> You need not intend for your actions to be malicious, for them to be. If you are willfully ignorant of malicious consequences of your actions, your actions are still malicious. I think this is almost the same point as parent, albeit slightly askew from that one. The hint is in your use of the word “willfully” — that is, you know what you are doing will result in harm, and you choose to do it anyway. A difference is that “intending to harm” may be a differently intractable behavior because it is effectively sadism. That is a tighter reward loop than “pretending it doesn’t harm” which can just be avoidance. Of course whether or not you can ever learn which of those (if it isn’t both) you’re dealing with is an entirely different matter. We agree on the tiger, though I do wonder what she would say if she could explain her actions.
- tpxl 4y ago
  > you know what you are doing will result in harm, and you choose to do it anyway No, you _don't know_ the consequences and you don't bother finding out before doing it.

by tpxl 4y ago

svnt 4y ago

> You need not intend for your actions to be malicious, for them to be. If you are willfully ignorant of malicious consequences of your actions, your actions are still malicious. I think this is almost the same point as parent, albeit slightly askew from that one. The hint is in your use of the word “willfully” — that is, you know what you are doing will result in harm, and you choose to do it anyway. A difference is that “intending to harm” may be a differently intractable behavior because it is effectively sadism. That is a tighter reward loop than “pretending it doesn’t harm” which can just be avoidance. Of course whether or not you can ever learn which of those (if it isn’t both) you’re dealing with is an entirely different matter. We agree on the tiger, though I do wonder what she would say if she could explain her actions.

tpxl 4y ago
> you know what you are doing will result in harm, and you choose to do it anyway No, you _don't know_ the consequences and you don't bother finding out before doing it.