And the Hi, I'm Peter Adamson and you're listening to the History of Philosophy podcast brought to you with the support of King's College London and the LMU in Munich online at

www. History of Philosophy. net.

Today's episode, With all your heart, ethics and Judaism.

One day a silent film comedian named Charlie decided he wanted to kill a rival for the

affections of the girl he was sweet on. He chose a weapon that had served him well in the

past, a banana skin to be dropped on the street just in front of an open manhole cover as the rival passed by.

But at the last minute, the rival veered away to buy a newspaper escaping harm and not even

noticing his brush with death. As fate would have it, across town another

silent film comedian named Buster was also plotting murder most foul. He too wanted to

bump off a rival and likewise selected a banana skin as his instrument. In this case the plan worked and the rival slipped to a suery doom.

Buster thought it was the perfect crime, but he was arrested and at the trial the banana skin

was presented in evidence covered with his fingerprints.

Yes, he lost on appeal.

Fate was not yet satisfied though.

On that very same day, a third comedian named Harold finished eating a banana and

negligently tossed the banana skin onto the street rather than depositing it in a litter basket.

A complete stranger half and by slipped on the banana skin and fell into an open manhole cover to Harold's horror. Now, how should we judge our three comedians

from an ethical point of view?

Should we evaluate their actions on the basis of their intentions or the consequences their actions produced?

If we go with intentions, then it looks like Buster is no worse than Charlie.

Both of them intended to kill their rival, and the fact that Buster succeeded is a matter of luck.

Yet, at least in the law, we do place some weight on consequences.

...