> can be presumed to intend the rationally foreseeable consequences of the policies they champion.
Well, I suppose it wouldn't make sense to call a foreseen outcome an "accident" or something like that, and I can see there being a sense in which you might call it "intent", but something that it clearly would not be, would be a "goal". "Trying to do <x>" when <x> has <y> as a known consequence, does not seem like "trying to do <y>" to me. If aware of some other means to achieve the other goals they have, with a decreased amount of death happening, it seems pretty obvious that they would pick that option?
Someone taking a morally abhorent trade-off (say, causing something that they want which is of little value at the cost of something much worse they do not want) is not the same thing as having both outcomes as desired outcomes of the action.
If it were, then anyone who made a reasonable trade-off, where the cost incurred is significant would be guilty of having that cost happening as a goal. That doesn't make sense.
I can't really imagine someone valuing the deaths of women, children, and the elderly, as an end in itself. That doesn't make sense. I don't see that as being a thing a real human person would value.
Well, I suppose it wouldn't make sense to call a foreseen outcome an "accident" or something like that, and I can see there being a sense in which you might call it "intent", but something that it clearly would not be, would be a "goal". "Trying to do <x>" when <x> has <y> as a known consequence, does not seem like "trying to do <y>" to me. If aware of some other means to achieve the other goals they have, with a decreased amount of death happening, it seems pretty obvious that they would pick that option?
Someone taking a morally abhorent trade-off (say, causing something that they want which is of little value at the cost of something much worse they do not want) is not the same thing as having both outcomes as desired outcomes of the action.
If it were, then anyone who made a reasonable trade-off, where the cost incurred is significant would be guilty of having that cost happening as a goal. That doesn't make sense.
I can't really imagine someone valuing the deaths of women, children, and the elderly, as an end in itself. That doesn't make sense. I don't see that as being a thing a real human person would value.