4 added 138 characters in body
source | link

Suppose Bob has immaculate knowledge of the future...

Bob knows if he graciously gives John $100, John will buy a gun and rob a bank so he can buy heroin.

Bob also knows that after John robs the bank, he will be chased by police.

As John is running, he will get nervous and conveniently throw his money bag in front of a children's hospital where hundreds of children are dying.

A hospital worker will find the money, and thinking it's an anonymous donation, use the money to save the children's lives.

John will eventually be caught and sent to prison, where he will overcome his addiction and spend the rest of his life teaching others about the dangers of addiction and crime.

Eventually, news will spread that the hospital unwittingly obtained this money from the robbery, and through various donations, the money will be returned to the bank.

Could someone please provide common arguments for the opinion that Bob's initial cause is equivalent to Bob committing the immoral act?

(HoweverNote: I want to offer an alternative scenario, but please don't consider it another possibility. This is actually irrelevant to my question, but let's say Bob knows if he does notrefuses to give John $100, John will steal an elderly lady's purse for heroin money, overdose, and die. The hospital will not receive any money and hundreds of children will die.)

Could someone please provide common arguments for and against the opinion that Bob's initial cause is equivalent to Bob committing the immoral act?

Suppose Bob has immaculate knowledge of the future...

Bob knows if he graciously gives John $100, John will buy a gun and rob a bank so he can buy heroin.

Bob also knows that after John robs the bank, he will be chased by police.

As John is running, he will get nervous and conveniently throw his money bag in front of a children's hospital where hundreds of children are dying.

A hospital worker will find the money, and thinking it's an anonymous donation, use the money to save the children's lives.

John will eventually be caught and sent to prison, where he will overcome his addiction and spend the rest of his life teaching others about the dangers of addiction and crime.

Eventually, news will spread that the hospital unwittingly obtained this money from the robbery, and through various donations, the money will be returned to the bank.

(However: Bob knows if he does not give John $100, John will steal an elderly lady's purse for heroin money, overdose, and die. The hospital will not receive any money and hundreds of children will die.)

Could someone please provide common arguments for and against the opinion that Bob's initial cause is equivalent to Bob committing the immoral act?

Suppose Bob has immaculate knowledge of the future...

Bob knows if he graciously gives John $100, John will buy a gun and rob a bank so he can buy heroin.

Bob also knows that after John robs the bank, he will be chased by police.

As John is running, he will get nervous and conveniently throw his money bag in front of a children's hospital where hundreds of children are dying.

A hospital worker will find the money, and thinking it's an anonymous donation, use the money to save the children's lives.

John will eventually be caught and sent to prison, where he will overcome his addiction and spend the rest of his life teaching others about the dangers of addiction and crime.

Eventually, news will spread that the hospital unwittingly obtained this money from the robbery, and through various donations, the money will be returned to the bank.

Could someone please provide common arguments for the opinion that Bob's initial cause is equivalent to Bob committing the immoral act?

(Note: I want to offer an alternative scenario, but please don't consider it another possibility. This is actually irrelevant to my question, but let's say Bob knows if he refuses to give John $100, John will steal an elderly lady's purse for heroin money, overdose, and die. The hospital will not receive any money and hundreds of children will die.)

3 edited title
| link

Is Bob's initial act immoral Can supporting intrinsically bad actions be justified considering their consequences?

2 added 58 characters in body; edited title
source | link

Is Bob guilty of immoralityBob's initial act immoral?

Suppose Bob has immaculate knowledge of the future...

Bob knows if he graciously gives John $100, John will buy a gun and rob a bank so he can buy heroin.

Bob also knows that after John robs the bank, he will be chased by police.

As John is running, he will get nervous and conveniently throw his money bag in front of a children's hospital where hundreds of children are dying.

A hospital worker will find the money, and thinking it's an anonymous donation, use the money to save the children's lives.

John will eventually be caught and sent to prison, where he will overcome his addiction and spend the rest of his life teaching others about the dangers of addiction and crime.

Eventually, news will spread that the hospital unwittingly obtained this money from the robbery, and through various donations, the money will be returned to the bank.

(However: Bob knows if he does not give John $100, John will steal an elderly lady's purse for heroin money, overdose, and die. The hospital will not receive any money and hundreds of children will die.)

WasCould someone please provide common arguments for and against the opinion that Bob's initial cause of this immoral actis equivalent to Bob committing the immoral act?

Is Bob guilty of immorality?

Suppose Bob has immaculate knowledge of the future...

Bob knows if he graciously gives John $100, John will buy a gun and rob a bank so he can buy heroin.

Bob also knows that after John robs the bank, he will be chased by police.

As John is running, he will get nervous and conveniently throw his money bag in front of a children's hospital where hundreds of children are dying.

A hospital worker will find the money, and thinking it's an anonymous donation, use the money to save the children's lives.

John will eventually be caught and sent to prison, where he will overcome his addiction and spend the rest of his life teaching others about the dangers of addiction and crime.

Eventually, news will spread that the hospital unwittingly obtained this money from the robbery, and through various donations, the money will be returned to the bank.

(However: Bob knows if he does not give John $100, John will steal an elderly lady's purse for heroin money, overdose, and die. The hospital will not receive any money and hundreds of children will die.)

Was Bob's initial cause of this immoral act equivalent to Bob committing the immoral act?

Is Bob's initial act immoral?

Suppose Bob has immaculate knowledge of the future...

Bob knows if he graciously gives John $100, John will buy a gun and rob a bank so he can buy heroin.

Bob also knows that after John robs the bank, he will be chased by police.

As John is running, he will get nervous and conveniently throw his money bag in front of a children's hospital where hundreds of children are dying.

A hospital worker will find the money, and thinking it's an anonymous donation, use the money to save the children's lives.

John will eventually be caught and sent to prison, where he will overcome his addiction and spend the rest of his life teaching others about the dangers of addiction and crime.

Eventually, news will spread that the hospital unwittingly obtained this money from the robbery, and through various donations, the money will be returned to the bank.

(However: Bob knows if he does not give John $100, John will steal an elderly lady's purse for heroin money, overdose, and die. The hospital will not receive any money and hundreds of children will die.)

Could someone please provide common arguments for and against the opinion that Bob's initial cause is equivalent to Bob committing the immoral act?

1
source | link