Is it laying that out? I think you have to significantly read between the lines to get there.
> what you seem to agree with, that good intentions aren't a shield for bad results
I wasn't giving my opinion so much as sumarizing its an unsolved problem with no obvious correct answer.
If you want my personal view. I don't believe actual results should be taken into account at all.
"you look really sexy today" isn't wrong to say because the recipent was offended. It's wrong to say because a reasonably acculturized person would know that there is a high chance it would be offensive in context. If the dice were on your side, and for some reason the recipent was delighted at your "compliment", i would still say it was wrong because you had no way of knowing that that would be the outcome. The wrongness has nothing to do with what actually happened, only with what was reasonably predictable to happen.
There are pros and cons to this view, and reasonable people do disagree.
[And to be clear, even if something was not predictable and therefore not "wrong", that doesn't absolve you from having to apologize/make it right if you accidentally hurt someone]
If reasonable behaviour and common sense was obvious, there would be no need for CoC or even laws.
Ultimately it devolves into what a majority of the group understands the norms of the group to be. The implicit assumption is that all members of the group have an implicit duty to understand the shared norms of the group (sort of like in the legal sphere where ignorance of the law is not a defense, but unintentionally breaking the law is, provided that the lack of intentionality isn't soley based on ignorance of what the laws are).
E.g. in the case you mentioned earlier, sexualizing co-workers is the wrong thing. Not knowing that sexualizing coworkers is not a defense. If you say something with a double meaning, which you ernestly didn't realize had a double meaning, that might be a defense. You didn't intend to break a rule, and your unintentional rule breakage had nothing to do with not knowing what the rules are. It doesn't mean you don't have to apologize, but it should be enough [on this view] to prevent punitive action (generally, as always context matters).
You could say that feels unsatisfactory, and you're right it does - its squishy and subjective. I don't hold this view because i think its perfect, but just because i think its the least bad of the alternatives.
> what you seem to agree with, that good intentions aren't a shield for bad results
I wasn't giving my opinion so much as sumarizing its an unsolved problem with no obvious correct answer.
If you want my personal view. I don't believe actual results should be taken into account at all.
"you look really sexy today" isn't wrong to say because the recipent was offended. It's wrong to say because a reasonably acculturized person would know that there is a high chance it would be offensive in context. If the dice were on your side, and for some reason the recipent was delighted at your "compliment", i would still say it was wrong because you had no way of knowing that that would be the outcome. The wrongness has nothing to do with what actually happened, only with what was reasonably predictable to happen.
There are pros and cons to this view, and reasonable people do disagree.
[And to be clear, even if something was not predictable and therefore not "wrong", that doesn't absolve you from having to apologize/make it right if you accidentally hurt someone]