The conclusion is probably true but it doesn’t seem to follow from the reasoning. There probably is some sort of monad-like process by which intent has no side effects and only the outcome matters. This is the dream of capitalist apologetics and many other modernist philosophies (is, “it is not by the benevolence of the butcher or the baker that they ply their trade”). But in practice these processes are impossible to achieve consistently and at scale. So I guess I would say: take a step back. Evaluate the claim as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Then do a cost benefit and feasibility analysis whenever the question comes up. This seems like the correct way to apply these ideas.
The conclusion is probably true but it doesn’t seem to follow from the reasoning. There probably is some sort of monad-like process by which intent has no side effects and only the outcome matters. This is the dream of capitalist apologetics and many other modernist philosophies (is, “it is not by the benevolence of the butcher or the baker that they ply their trade”). But in practice these processes are impossible to achieve consistently and at scale. So I guess I would say: take a step back. Evaluate the claim as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Then do a cost benefit and feasibility analysis whenever the question comes up. This seems like the correct way to apply these ideas.