In many current discussions–this colloquy with my friend Jeff, for instance–it becomes important to ascertain the intention of an action, not just the fact of a behavior.  In other contexts, “behavior modification” is often a useful goal; in matters of justice, however, we must determine who is liable to punishment for an action, and who is liable for the consequences of an action.

When we do that, may I humbly suggest that we take as our operational definition of “intention” the “victory condition” or “success condition” of the action?  That is both cognitively realist and consistent with the formative tradition of our best understandings of justice.

When we speak of the “end” that we “aim at” or “tend toward” in an action, we often accidentally shift the ground of argument.  The crucial question is who is responsible for selecting certain means, and whether those means were selected with a view to a certain end.  Instead, all too often we begin to discuss the competition of motives and the intensity of our emotional attachment to various ends–all interesting, but not helpful in matters of justice.

But others, attempting to reject a situationism that dissolves responsible agency in a sea of potential incitements, tend to ignore “intention” altogether.  Yet it is obvious that behaviors vary in their quality and consequences, and agents in their culpability and responsibility, based on the whole act–that is, the means-toward-end as a unit, not as fragmented.

And for that reason, I suggest that we think of “intention” not as a matter of emotional intensity or other coloring of certain drives or “values,” but as a matter of the “success condition” of an action (voluntary behavior with a discernable aim).

This question of intention can also help explain why some common arguments are off-kilter:

1. “How can you condemn someone for helping a suffering old man die quietly?”
2. “Miscarriages are natural abortions, so why shouldn’t we use modern medical skills to make this natural process more suitable to human needs?”
3. “Oral contraceptives are often prescribed to alleviate severe menstrual symptoms, so how could you be opposed to contraception?”
4. “The only basis for rejecting ‘gay marriage’ is animus against a certain class of people.”

We can clarify each of these by asking what the actual “success conditions” for the responsible agents are.

1. We definitely do not condemn anyone’s otherwise unobjectionable efforts to alleviate suffering and comfort the afflicted!  In fact, we would not necessarily condemn efforts to alleviate suffering which may, as a side effect, hasten death.  What we condemn is setting “the old man is dead” as the end, and taking steps to achieve that end.
2. We cannot and need not always succeed, or always go to every conceivable length, to save every life; people do die, and we have to know that.  What we must not do is set “the baby is dead” as the end, and take steps to achieve that end.
3. Here, we can look at the testing and approval process for these drugs, and discern the intended effects from the side-effects.  The intended effect of The Pill is disrupting the process that leads to pregnancy; if that were not so, we would see regulators and researchers attempting to achieve the worthy goal of alleviating suffering without any “side effects” that might disrupt conception or cause abortion.  But we well know that this is exactly the opposite of the intention of most of those who develop, market, approve, sell, prescribe, and use these toxic draughts.
4. I can find you some examples of irrational animus, certainly.  But there is a clearly definable boundary between “This is not ‘marriage,’ and you cannot require me to pretend it is,” and “I hate anybody who experiences certain desires.”  In fact, there is a very large middle.  The right question to ask those who oppose the coerced recognition of certain non-marital couplings as “marriage” is “at what point would you consider this matter resolved?  What would ‘winning’ look like?”  And then hold us to it.  And expect the same.

The constant displacement of actual intentionality with a warfare of emotivist “values” versus “objective” behaviorist analysis deprives us all of justice.  We can and should do better.