If a person's actions have a net positive outcome, but the outcome was unintentional, did they do a good thing? Similarly, if an ideology or religion has in its code of ethics a good thing but for the wrong reasons, is it still good? For example, if the Bible said to treat women with respect, but the reason for doing so was because women were deemed as frail or incapable of defending themselves, is it then wrong? Because we should respect women, but that's not why we should.
I'm curious your opinions about the intent/action dichotomy. If actions are good but intentions are bad, is the person behind the action acting badly? Conversely, if the action is bad but the intention is good, is the person acting badly? I have always thought that intent should receive greater consideration, but this opinion is only tentative. I'm very open to persuasion, as I've not really made my mind up on the matter entirely.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Jared, you wrote, “If a person's actions have a net positive outcome, but the outcome was unintentional, did they do a good thing?”
I think there’s a difference between doing a good thing and a good thing happening. There are lots of things one might call good that were not done by anyone.
I think that intentions and results are apples and oranges.
I mostly agree. It just gives me some degree of cognitive dissonance to completely dismiss the outcome of an action in relation to the intent.
Let me provide the example that gives me the most grief.
A business owner wants to cut spending in the production process so he switches the materials used by his manufacturers to less expensive ones, and costs are reduced. Come to find out the material previously used was highly carcinogenic, and the new one is perfectly safe, but this was never part of the consideration process for finding a new material. So, the business owner, who was only concerned with the depth of his own pockets, inadvertently saves countless people from possibly getting cancer. Did he do a good thing?
A good thing happened. But it was only a byproduct of his participation in it. Therefore, he does not get to claim the result as purposefully his.
Okay, I see your point. Thank you for your input, Cyber
You have to define what you mean by "doing a good thing." From a practical perspective, someone who intended harm but did good (whatever that means) can't be depended on to always do good since he may succeed in doing harm the next time around. But, if no harm was intended, and that person did good because of some erroneous viewpoint, then you can depend on that person to do good in that situation. It's the probable results that count, and if they are not affected by one's intentions then such intentions are irrelevant. On the other hand, if you are giving someone a medal for a good deed, then intentions would be of interest.
Intent makes no difference at all if the action causes harm. People with good intentions make promises but people with good character keep them. Intention is irrelevant. It is not measurable or verifiable. After an act the criminal can always ascribe good intentions to his actions, look at the modern police force in America. A bunch of overly pushy, abusive jerks who are just there to serve and protect. Actions are everything. Intentions are simply rationalizations and need not be validated in any way. You are what you do and not what you intend to do. Bad decisions based on good intentions are still bad decisions. Good intentions are never an excuse for bad actions. They do nothing at all to amend the harm caused by a bad outcome.
Is this a "free will" question Jared? If Cog walks off the platform, in front of a train, or if you push him off the platform, the outcome is the same? Sorry Cog.
It isn't, but I would happily debate the issue of free will with you.
OMG! Poor Cog!
@Cog Re: Train
Noooo...!!! Don't do it, Cog! Think of all the things you have to live for!... Hamburgers. Hotdogs. Ocean-view condos. Double-stuff Oreo cookies. Turkish massage parlors. A bathtub full of cooked pasta. Rainbows. Adorable fluffy kittens. Auto-erotic asphyxiation. Boy Bands. Loaded baked potatoes. Chips and dips. Antique stamp collections. (And the list goes on and on...)
@ TM
"Auto-erotic asphyxiation. Boy Bands" I find it very disturbing that you chose to juxtapose these two items...is there a psyche on the house?
@Old Man
Oh...Geee... well, umm... Those two items were really together?... *nervous laugh*... Oh, well lookie there. I suppose they were. What are the odds? Totally random, though, I can assure you.... *sweating*.... *rubbing back of neck*.... Funny, though, right?... *nervous laugh*... Soooo, uhhhh, yeah..... *diverting eyes*... *clearing throat*... Um, so, how's the weather out there?