This always confused me if a child breaks a vase the parents say "Well it's an accident it's not your fault.". Assuming the person is not negligent if someone does something bad like break a vase or kill someone in a car accident should they be fined or thrown in jail?
-
ignorance of the law isn't.– user38026Jan 28, 2020 at 22:32
-
Okay please answer my main question, but thanks for pointing out my fallacious example– TheGuradianJan 28, 2020 at 22:37
-
no people who non-negligently kill someone in an accident should not go to jail. that's a facet of what out legal system is built around, same as ignorance of the law being no excuse. the only thing i'd add is that the courts will have a higher standard of proof of negligence than others. you may want to google "moral luck", not sure. "immunity from luck has been thought by many to be part of the very essence of morality"– user38026Jan 28, 2020 at 22:41
-
4Does this answer your question? Is it a logical flaw to blame someone for an event if they were simply its causal factor?– ConifoldJan 29, 2020 at 8:59
-
1Welcome to SE Philosophy! Thanks for your contribution. Please take a quick moment to take the tour or find help. You can perform searches here or seek additional clarification at the meta site.– J DJan 29, 2020 at 17:12
|
Show 3 more comments
3 Answers
"By accident" is a difficult and often misused term. As I see it, there are at least three cases to consider:
- An outcome that was unforeseeable given the context and the behavior of the person involved
- An outcome that was foreseeable given the context and the behavior of the person involved, but for some reason was never considered
- An outcome that was foreseeable given the context and the behavior of the person involved, and was known to the person involved, but which the person risked anyway
Consider a professional juggler practicing his routine. Case 1 would be juggling in a practice room, where a ball might slip his hand, bounce off an unseen trampoline, and smash a window. Case 2 is juggling while walking down a city street, without considering that a slipped ball has a high chance of smashing some window. Case 3 is actively seeking out a display of window glass to practice next to, because the risk of smashing a window makes the practice more fun.
Children are generally considered to have deficits in foresight, so they aren't usually held responsible for the consequences of their behavior (aside from scolding and mild punishments meant to get them to use foresight). Adults are generally considered to have the capacity for foresight, and face consequences according to how foreseeable the outcome was. But morally coherent adults generally feel a sense of responsibility for the outcomes of their own actions, even if the outcome was truly unforeseeable. A morally coherent person who breaks a window pays to have it replaced.
answered Jul 3, 2022 at 15:18
I don't see how personal feelings of guilt or the bereaved parents mood are relevant. Assuming the truth of your example that there was no negligence involved, then the accident is precisely that - a turn of fate.
"From a moral point of view, you could argue that the person is innocent, because they had no intent to do something bad" . From both a moral and a legal point of view.
If someone does something by accident are they responsible?
Without considering their age you can say they are not responsible, if you can confirm whether that is by accident. But to make people aware of the importance of other people's lives and make them alert, except for children, such excuses should not be allowed in the society.
