the-internet-vagabond-dot-com/_drafts/Morality_of_Action.txt

If I perform an act, which is considered malicious, but perform it without the
intention of malice, is that act still malicious?

I think the answer to this question is no.

Let's start with what I'm really asking: does the morality of an action rely on
intent?

To say that it does not raises (at least) one big concern: if the morality of an
act does not rely on intent, then it follows that the morality of actions are
objective; they exist with a morality universally pre-established, regardless of
individual experience. I cannot accept this proposition. If I were to
accept it, I would be accepting that offence is the responsibility of the
offender, and not the offended. This is simply not the case.

Let's focus on this for a moment: Offence is the responsibility of the offended,
not the offender. This means if someone calls you a mean name, it is your
responsibility to determine if that is offensive or not. Part of this is rooted
in Stoic principles. I can control only my perceptions, and nothing more, so if
I perceive something as offensive, then that is my choice. On the other hand, I
cannot control how others perceive my actions, and thus I cannot control if I
offend others. Do not mistake this as an excuse to be rude or unjust. Recall the
importance of temperance and justice, and be wise in action.

To begin, recognize that through our perceptions we can know what offends us,
and we should extend this understanding to others; do unto others, etcetera.
Continue, and recognize that if we are offended, then we are allowing offence to
control our perceptions. This is absurd. Accept, though, that not all will share
in this understanding. This is not to say, speak only in a way that you do not
offend. This is unreasonable. This is to say, speak with the knowledge, that
your intentions may have no bearing on another's perceptions. Another may allow
offence to control their perceptions, much as they may allow hate or fear or
greed to do so. I will say again, this is absurd. Never relinquish control over
the only thing which you can control. Never empower an ephemeral master such
as emotion, that which will cause catostrophe then flee when atonement is due.

Let's recurse. It is our responsibility to understand offence, and to
recognize when it seeks to control us. We cannot control when others are
offended. We can understand when and why our actions may cause offense, and we
can use and share this knowledge to better understand ourselves, and our
environments. Most importantly, though, we must accept that if we have no
control over offending someone, then intentions are irrelevant. Thus, offense is
subjective.

Let's recurse another step. Does the morality of an action rely on intent? We
must decide if morality is objective, or subjective. If morality is objective,
then there is an objective "good" which exists universally, free of experience.
Were this the case, our intentions would be entirely relevant to our actions,
and, in the case of offense, we could say anything we wanted and cause no
offense, so long as our intentions are good. However, we've already established
that this is false, and so it follows that there is no objective morality
(Sorry, Rand). Morality is subjective. What you consider good, you were taught,
and learned, and developed. We, as society, have agreed that certain things are
good, and thus we embrace them as such, and teach them as such, and help them
develop.  Thus it is our responsibility to forge our morality as best we can,
and then help forge the morality of society.

Does the morality of an action depend on intent? I propose yes, though
indirectly. To the acted-upon and society, intent matters little, but to the
actor, the morality of an action depends entirely on intent. By shaping our
actions to be as full of our intent as possible, we act in such a way as to make
the reception of the action as explicit as possible. If we wish to act in a
morally righteous manner, then we must infuse all our actions with the
undeniable intention of righteousness. And though it may be received
differently, we have done all within our power to act morally. Most importantly,
based on the reception, we now have a point of reference; an introspective aid.
We can now temper our morality against those of others and society, and through
this repeated feedback cycle, we can hone our morals.