PT34.S2.Q24 - the defendant wanted to clear the snow off his car

Comments

• CFC152436 Alum Member

  August 2014 edited August 2014 284 karma

  I'm not sure if the flaw has a formal name, but the lawyer has assumed that just because one thing has a certain quality, that another thing must also have that same quality.
  
  1. Defendant intentionally moved the snow
  2. The plaintiff was harmed as a result of the intentionally moved snow
  Therefore,
  3. Defendant intentionally harmed the plaintiff
  
  The defendant intentionally performed A, and, as a result of A, B occured. From this, the lawyer has concluded that the defendant intentionally performed B. Why is this an invalid argument? Well, put simply, we can't transfer the intentionally of the original action to all of the action's eventual consequences (especially because the consequences occured unbeknownst to the defendent). In other words, the lawyer has assumed that simply because the snow shoveling was intentional, that the harm was intentional as well. Unfortunately for him, there's no logical reason why this has to be true. Consider the following: I intentionally move my arm across the table, and, in doing so, knock over the salt container. Can we conclude that I intentionally knocked over the salt container? I suppose we could, but it certainly wouldn't be a valid argument. In short, just because someone intentionally performed an action does not mean that he intended all of the consequences his actions to occur as well.
  
  Hope this helps!
• evanoxax Alum Member

  August 2014 17 karma

  gracias!!! it is clear now!