Intent and Incompetence
Both in my personal life and in the larger society I’ve thought a lot recently about negative outcomes and how they have occurred. I’m going to use a couple of specific examples from recent memory to aid me in this brief discussion.
This first example is not a political debate per se, and it is definitely not intended to be provocative. Within two months there were two separate events. Both resulted in the deaths of teenagers. One was 16 deaths. The other 17. One was a bus crash in Canada carrying a hockey team. The other was a school shooting in Florida. Both were tragic and in both cases parents never saw children again.(1) The point I’m making is the only difference was that the bus crash was unintentional (i.e. due to incompetence) while the school shooting was intentional. The outcome was the same. Both were violent, traumatic deaths for the victims. People were dead and they would no longer pursue dreams or enjoy time with loved ones. It’s just that one was carried out by evil intent while the other was due to incompetence.
Now the second example is a personal (and less controversial) example. I had an insurance agent quote me on my car insurance. I was told it would be $400 for the year. I agreed, paid the bill, and we went our separate ways. A couple of months later I received a bill for an additional $90.(2) I talked to the agent and he said that the original quote was inaccurate, but I was still liable for the additional cost. I then explained to him that whether or not it was an honest mistake or (as a salesman) he intentionally misled me the result is the same. I must pay an additional 20% to what we initially agreed to. The negative outcome and the harm it caused me was no different whether it was a result of intent or incompetence.
With both of these examples and many others I’ve reflected on whether or not it matters if a negative outcome is the result of intent or simple incompetence. There are many other ways this can be seen in our lives. A manager may not like you and set out to ruin your career with you getting fired or she may just be terrible at her job that results in the team being let go and your career is still over. An incompetent baker may bake a terrible cake because he has no idea what he is doing and your party would be just as ruined as if the baker maliciously chose ingredients that would also ruin the cake and thus your party.
We tend to be much more forgiving when people are incompetent than when they intentionally cause harm. The news tends to ignore stories of incompetence more than those of intent. So it would seem that even if the results are exactly the same (or even worse) we are more willing to accept incompetence than intent. But should we? Should we allow humans to drive cars on the road any more than we allow people to own guns? Should an incompetent salesman be fired as soon as a dishonest one? If our goal is less harm to individuals and societies then it seems incompetence should be dealt with as quickly and harshly as intent.(3) It probably wouldn’t be too hard to demonstrate that incompetence causes much greater harm in our society than intent…(4)
I’d like to hear your thoughts.
(1) Now in this instance people will say we don’t need guns. But it can also be said we don’t need hockey. “Necessity” is not the point I’m debating in this instance. Also a guest on Bill Maher’s show said she attributes a negative character to firearms because lots of people are dying. But lots more people are dying from car deaths and few people associate cars with a negative character.
(2) Because I’m not married and insurance for single people is more expensive
(3) "The greatest good for the greatest number”; see Jeremy Bentham and Utilitarianism
(4) The road to hell is paved with good intentions
0 comments :