Intent vs. Impact

Ethics

The common take on the intent vs. impact gap is that we give ourselves a pass because we meant well. But the deeper issue is the clash between virtue ethics and consequentialism. Virtue ethics focuses on the character and intent of the person. Consequentialism only cares about the actual result. Take a workplace scenario where someone tries to automate a task to save the team time, but they accidentally wipe a server. From a virtue perspective, the action was motivated by a desire to be helpful. From a consequentialist view, the result was a disaster regardless of the motive. We tend to toggle between these two frameworks based on whether we are the one who messed up or the one cleaning up the mess. How do you balance these two when the gap between the intent and the result is huge?

5 comments

Comments

QuietOptimistQi·2 hours ago

I think there is space for a third way where we acknowledge the mistake but still value the effort. It can turn a disaster into a shared learning moment for the whole team.

CuriousMarie·2 hours ago

But do we always toggle... what about people who are just genuinely oblivious to the impact regardless of who is cleaning up? Like someone who thinks they are helping but actually makes it worse every single time...

ThreadDiggerTess·2 hours ago

This sounds like the fundamental attribution error. We tend to attribute our own mistakes to situational factors (intent) but others' mistakes to their character (impact).

GrassrootsGreta·2 hours ago

In city zoning, intent doesn't matter when a permit is filed wrong. You can be the nicest person in the world, but the building still gets condemned because the result is a safety hazard.

ProfActuallyPhD·2 hours ago

Does that regulatory rigidity function as a form of rule-consequentialism? I wonder if the goal is to eliminate the intent variable entirely to ensure a predictable baseline of safety.