Justice

Man A and Man B carry out the exact same immoral deed but Man A's actions result in no major consequences while Man B ends up severely harming someone. Is one Man more at fault than the other?

How could one be more at fault when both of them carried out the same moral choices? And how can they be equally to blame if one's actions had no significant negative consequence while the other's did?

The only true resolution of the problem is the separation of "wrong" and "to blame". Both men have done equal wrong by carrying out the same immoral deed(e.g. they put somebody's health at risk) And for this, both must be made to understand why what they did was "wrong" (i.e. why they should not do it again)

As for Man B, he must make amends for the consequences of his actions. That is to say that he is to use his personal resources to reverse or compensate for the negative happenings which result directly from his actions (directly in the sense that they happened due to what he did and no one else - say a Man C- used what Man B did to bring about any further consequences. If such an event takes place, Man C is responsible for all the consequences which follow after his involvement.) In doing so the negative effects brought forth by Man B are reversed/compensated for and so Man B is freed of guilt and hence justice has taken place.

Our actions, regardless of our intent, are exactly what identifies us in the world. And if we cannot take responsibility for ourselves, who can?

That is an important thing to note; to ourselves we are an endless pool of thought and emotion, but to the world around us we can only be perceived by what we do. And so our identities in the world are made up entirely of our actions. In short; We are what we do.

In fact I think it is appropriate to repeat that phrase and end on it.


We are what we do.