Taking the intent for the act is potentially dangerous and deceptive of the self and others. What one means to do simply does not guarantee that what one does is successful or even worth doing, never mind morally just.
Is that because intent is a function of intellect and myopic or because the operation of hormone-driven emotions is overlooked? Is intent prone to self-deception? If so, what purpose does the self-deception serve? I suspect it is just the survival of the organism until its components wear out or succumb to some deadly insult. So, the survival instinct has no moral import at all. Survival is amoral. Murder is immoral.
This train of thought was prompted by a desire to formulate why substituting intent to define an action is so often disastrous, both for the agent and the victim. “I meant” is often an excuse for failure. It is problematic because it ignores the cause of the action, as well as the act itself, that produced negative results.
It is even questionable whether an expression of intent after the fact can be accurate. How can one avoid defining the cause of a negative consequence without taking the negativity into account? If the consequence was unintended then intent was irrelevant. In effect, the intellect where intent was formed is worthless.
Oh, but if the intellect is worthless, where does self-worth lie? Is self-doubt responsible for man’s quest for social validation? I do suspect it is a male problem. Females are made to procreate, whether they do or don’t. What purpose a male? Just to dominate?