Ethical quandries

[TrippinBTM]

If someone does a good deed for a selfish reason (like donating money for tax purposes) is it still a good deed?


If someone does a good deed by accident, when they intended to do a bad deed (run a car off the road for cutting them off, when the guy in that car was on his way to rape the woman in the trunk, but because he was wrecked, the woman is saved), is it still a good deed?

I guess the question boils down to this: is intent behind one's deeds important, or is it the result that counts? Do the ends justify the means? Is donating money for tax reasons just as good as doing it for honestly charitable reasons?

[Mr MiGu]

st augustine says that the intent is what matters

i think that all good deeds are done selfishly, so it doesnt matter.

[nitemarehippygirl]

i think that what happened in the end is all that matters. the idea of donating money for tax purposes... all that means is that the situation was win-win. the recievers of the donated money experienced the good deed (win), and what happens to the doer doesn't matter, whether it was win or lose.
the person who intended a bad deed but accomplished a good deed: what was accomplished was still the good deed, and i think that's all that matters; actions (deed), not intent.

[Hikaru Zero]

If someone does a good deed for a selfish reason (like donating money for tax purposes) is it still a good deed?

It's still a deed. So, yes, it's still a good deed. But it's not a deed that has the merit of being done without expectation of compensation for the deed. So if you want a "better than thou" argument, the deed isn't as good as one that is done for more pure reasons.


If someone does a good deed by accident, when they intended to do a bad deed (run a car off the road for cutting them off, when the guy in that car was on his way to rape the woman in the trunk, but because he was wrecked, the woman is saved), is it still a good deed?

There is no such thing as a deed "by accident." At least not the way I'm interpreting it. A deed is "willed" or intended to happen by the doer. That is, the doer tried to make it happen. Anything less (the "good deed") is simply an action, and the bad deed is also not a deed, nor is it an action, but only an intention.

Thus he is a man with bad intentions who has good actions but no real "deeds" or intended actions.

I guess the question boils down to this: is intent behind one's deeds important, or is it the result that counts? Do the ends justify the means? Is donating money for tax reasons just as good as doing it for honestly charitable reasons?

What is "good"? Is good, to you, an action, or an intention? This can be answered by defining what you consider to be "good." Which may not be the same as with everyone else.

[Duck]

I think if the result was a coincidence or by chance it doesn't count, but in the case of donating to right off taxes, as long as you recognize that it's doing a good thing it would count as a good deed

[cabdirazzaq]

If someone does a good deed for a selfish reason (like donating money for tax purposes) is it still a good deed?It feels quite difficult for me to approach such a matter without including the views of my religion as it always coincides with my own views.
The prophet(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said:

"The reward of deeds depends upon the intention and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended".

Acually, as muslims we believe that one among the first 3 people to enter hell is one who gave from his wealth to poor people with a bad intention

"Then Allah will address the generous man and say: “I gave you wealth and property and what did you do with it?” The generous man will say, “I gave it to the poor and needy for Your sake.” Allah will say to him: “You are a liar! You gave in charity because you wanted people to honor you as a generous man.” Finally, Allah will order His angels to take them all to Hell.’(Muslim, At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasai)

If someone does a good deed by accident, when they intended to do a bad deed (run a car off the road for cutting them off, when the guy in that car was on his way to rape the woman in the trunk, but because he was wrecked, the woman is saved), is it still a good deed?

The prophet (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) explained this in a hadith;

"He who has intended a good deed and has not done it, Allah writes it down with Himself as a full good deed, but if he has intended it and has done it, Allah writes it down with Himself as from ten good deeds to seven hundred times, or many times over. But if he has intended a bad deed and has not done it, Allah writes it down with Himself as a full good deed, but if he has intended it and has done it, Allah writes it down as one bad deed."

[BlackBillBlake]

I think it depends on what angle you view it from. In the Bible, Jesus warns about those who do good 'to be seen of men', and says they have their reward in the esteem they thus aquire. That would be a 'selfish' attitude to doing good deeds.


So from the point of view of the doer of the good deed, it may make a difference. But from the standpoint of the person/s who benefit from the good deed it probably makes no difference. If I am drowning, I'm not concerned about the intent of the person who pulls me out of the water. Same is true if someone does me a good turn by accident.

The situation is complicated because many religious people think that doing good is their ticket to heaven - so in that case, it's hard to see how any good deed they do can ever be free of self-interest. True philanthropists are rare beings in this world! Even preachers of religion often only want to convert you because it brings them (so they believe) some merit.

But there's also the argument that doing good is actually always acting in one's own self interest ultimately because anything one does to improve conditions in the world improves things for oneself too.

In terms of doing good, it is probably better to look at it from the standpoint of the person to whom the good is done rather than the doer.

[Sign Related]

You should question this:

Are they good to themself or good to the other? Or are they good to themself and good to the other?

You know, someone evil could do something evil to someone else and feel good about it.

So if anyone is going to say it's a good deed to the person or to other people, without knowing the intent of that person, then they are likened unto a foolish person. Such a foolish person would accidently give an evil wolf good recognition. So it's best to keep whether or not it's a good deed toward yourself within as just an opinion to be wise about it rather than:

1. Get others to buy into the person is good.
2. Make the mistake of having that person take you for a fool to be taken advantage of later.

^^^There be people, when it is too late, thinking then within themself, "How could I have been led into this doom? I mean, the person seemed to be a good person." Or thinking, "Why did I listen to someone else about this person being good?! Now I'm paying for it."