The facts are what are and are not different or have different consequences depending on what has motivated them.
A cup of coffee poured over the papers ruins you exactly the same whatever the motivation of your fall.
Actually, the cup was going to fall and the papers to ruin because the accumulation of conditions that led to that position was not going to stop, it is clear.
What we can make clear is that, if this will happen again or not, as a way to prevent possible future damage.
An anachronistic and ignorant way to avoid it is the so-called “revenge”. In a totalitarian way, you act against the one who has poured the cup punitively in order to prevent him from doing it again and even to serve as an example to others.
You hang him, for example.
And, although you have avoided immediate harm, the consequences that are unleashed from the fact of hanging him are so serious that there is no doubt that the remedy is worse than the disease.
In addition, you throw a disturbing message: who throws a cup will end up hanging.
To regulate this fear, immediately appears on the scene what we call “justice”, charged with ensuring the application of revenge making use of the state monopoly of violence, but modulating its application.
Justice is a valued form of revenge that tries to avoid dire consequences based on social consensus and the punitive power of the State. In fact, justice can not reverse the damage, it can only do other damage.
For the regulation of damage rates to be applied, the concept of “fault” is used, as if the “fault” had the capacity to vary the consequences of the act.
What else gives papers that are intentionally wet depending on dark interests, or a simple mistake, or mental illness or any exemption?
The real use of guilt is to “exculpate,” that is, to declare revenge not applicable in a set of assessed cases.
But for what?
It only occurs to me as a justification for the application of punishment so that it is socially acceptable. That is, the penalty is “fair”.
Then giving a mental caper we are going to play the field of magical thinking (again). That is, “revenge” is applied (something that does not prevent the act and its effects) depending on the “fault”.
The guilt is the dysphoric experience that is felt when breaking the cultural rules (both religious, political, family, of a group of belonging, etc.), or by the thought of committing said transgression. It is a necessary feeling for obsessive-compulsive disorder.
If someone feels guilty it is because he deserves revenge. Rather, from revenge is why that someone feels guilty.
In the field of Law the concepts of guilt and fraud are used, in relation to the “intentionality” for what that act was done. And, according to, this applies a greater revenge if the act was “intentional”.
The coffee ruined the papers. The revenge towards the subject that knocked him down is not going to restore the papers. The intention of pouring the cup did not cause it to spill. It has been dumped the same, with or without intention.
It is evident that, in the past, this is absolutely useless. But what about the future?
If we introduce new acts of revenge, these will cause undesirable consequences in the future, so we must assess whether burning the forest is the best way to prevent fires in the forest.
To prevent what should be used is the analysis of the causes that caused it and are never people or things. The causes are causes and if you do not act on them we do not solve the problem and if, in addition, we set fire to things we multiply the problem.
Intentionality refers to the voluntariness of the act, and is an important issue to consider. The first thing that is voluntary, that is, the individual has had control of the act, has valued it and executed it. This assessment provides a risk / benefit that seemed acceptable to the author. In other words, he has thrown away the cup because it suited him.
And if it suited him, it’s because of other preconditions that the consequences of throwing the cup make it desirable. That is, he has done it “for something”.
In this way, by existing that “something” you can act on it, preventing it from causing people to pull cups from time to time.
Unintentionality refers to the fact that, without a proximate cause, the damage has been done. This is much worse, because not being able to identify the cause can not be acted upon.
People act by previous conditioning. And when you do not use attention if you are conditioned to it, you will be doing harm without any kind of control
What’s worse? A paid murderer who kills a certain individual, or one who, going with the car loaded with bombs, gets distracted and crashes into the first person who crosses his path?
The killer is avoidable in the future by acting on the causes that led the killer to the fact, but the other? How can you prevent someone from falling apart?
In fact, the damages for deception are much more numerous than the intentional ones. For example, accidents at work, traffic accidents, which by definition are not malicious, kill many more people than paid killers.
In this calculation we should include the insane who enter their school to shoot to kill everything that moves and many of the terrorist acts, since both are due to alienation. They kill because yes.
Like the one who knocks down the cup because he was clueless with the cell phone.
Being much more serious to act “just because”, alienated for a thousand reasons, guilt exempts the guilty and justice exonerates him from fraud.
This is why guilt and justice, in addition to not solving the problem, cause the opposite effect to what they are supposedly looking for.
Attention is the important thing. I do not blame her
So the guilt-based ethical systems murder at all times and feel great because they do “the right thing”.