A very old and basic ethical question...

[John221]

Let us know what you all think...

[BlackGuardXIII]

Do you like hearing...
Ooops.
It was an accident.
I didn't think that would happen.
I didn't mean to.
It wasn't my fault.
Couldn't be helped.
Maybe it can be fixed.
Now I know for next time.
I wasn't thinking.
I meant well.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[PhantomOpus]

Agreed.

[Professor Jumbo]

Well that's a nice question and all, but the two are inseparable except in the case of intentions that have not been acted upon in which ase the question is moot.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Well that's a nice question and all, but the two are inseparable except in the case of intentions that have not been acted upon in which ase the question is moot.I see good intentions that are acted upon that go awry and end up making things worse, every day. I have done it myself many times, tried to help in some way, and actually worsened things by acting on my good intentions. It is hard for me to get your point. Could you be more specific, cuz the way I read it, I just totally disagree.

[nitemarehippygirl]

well, i voted for 'the consequences of our actions' but upon further thought, maybe i should have voted otherwise.
like blackguard said, good intentions don't mean much when your actions have wreaked havoc on someone else's life.
but we've all been forgiven by our mothers with the phrase, 'it's the thought that counts'. isn't the inherent goodness of mankind more important than our final outcome? whether we prosper or bomb out, isn't it enough that we were good?

[Occam]

IMPORTANT?

Important to WHAT?
--------------------------------------
If we speak rationally.we speak of anyone effected by the action.
--------------------------------------

The consequences of ones actions are the ONLY
thing of import.

Intentions are neuroelectric stuctures of the brain.
They exist,,but mean nothing without interpretation.

Consequences are the 'Result in reality'
of those intentions..applied.

Thus..to humanity..they are the only thing that is of importance.

Are we individuals without race.
No.
Are we race without individuals.
No

Thus EACH must BE WISE...Or our race suffers.
Yet what does occam see...a society that worshiops ignorance and facile appearance.

Ethics are as reason does.

Occam

[nitemarehippygirl]

but couldn't a race of robots accomplish the same thing? right action and right consequence, but no real 'human soul'.

[Occam]

but couldn't a race of robots accomplish the same thing? right action and right consequence, but no real 'human soul'. NMHG

Nightmarehippygirl

Occam sees no 'souls'
What is a soul? and where did you last see one?
Souls are a product of popular fiction.

That fiction being religion.

Please throw away your preconceptions.
It is quite possible for a machine race to have morals and ethics.
Even ones similar to our own.
If they revere life and sentience as a valued thing
then how are they different to the best humanity has to offer?

Humans are SO ARROGANT > THAT WE THINK WE INVENTED THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THINGS.

LOL

Occam






Occam

[oldwolf]

So damn the torpedoes might makes right and whatever it takes -
Geez we're overpopulated and the results of some good old fashioned decimation would be good for the earth lets go for it

Intent is always important and when things go bad in spite of your intent with the intent intact you can make amends - without the intent who gives a fuck anyway - I mean they shoot horses don't they ?

[Occam]

So damn the torpedoes might makes right and whatever it takes -
Geez we're overpopulated and the results of some good old fashioned decimation would be good for the earth lets go for it

Intent is always important and when things go bad in spite of your intent with the intent intact you can make amends - without the intent who gives a fuck anyway - I mean they shoot horses don't they ? oldwolf

Intent is a personal thing...
It evolves the intender no mater what the result.
'Might makes right' is NO ISSUE HERE. It is a 'way' to realise intent

Sorry if occam has put it ALL on you...That you must
THINK..before you act... Good intentions is the POOR EXCUSE we use to cover up the fact that REASON WAS NOT USED.

Thus the saying.."the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
IS NOT a religious saying.
The ROAD TO HELL ON EARTH IS PAVED WITH THE INTENTIONS OF EGO AND IGNORANCE.

Occam

[oldwolf]

So according to Occam when one has intent they cannot be logical or thinking beings
Intent is not the ooposite of thinking nor does it contraindicate thinking - but without a pure intent any action is so much a part of the ego and cannot help but be based upon ignorance for intent is inherent within any actions except possiblyinstictual ones

Could it be possible we mean different things with the word - Found that most philisophical differences are based upon differing interpretations of the words used.
However if belittleling is your game - go for it - I'm sure your intent will be satisfied by the results.

Without the intent being focused action becomes arbitrary

[nitemarehippygirl]

yeah..

i was going to ask, 'so in a perfect world, are no mistakes made?'
but then, i suppose that should be obvious...
i suppose by 'human soul', i meant that 'beauty in error' which, yes, is maybe a popular cover-up for our misgivings... i don't know, you've given me a lot to think about. *shrug*

[bedlam]

The consequences of our actions is more important to me..

[Nimue]

Sometimes our actions are driven by our intentions, and when all is said & done we find ourselves saying "I didn't intend for that to happen". It's a double-edged sword.

[Occam]

delete

[Occam]

So according to Occam when one has intent they cannot be logical or thinking beings
Intent is not the ooposite of thinking nor does it contraindicate thinking - but without a pure intent any action is so much a part of the ego and cannot help but be based upon ignorance for intent is inherent within any actions except possiblyinstictual ones

Could it be possible we mean different things with the word - Found that most philisophical differences are based upon differing interpretations of the words used.
However if belittleling is your game - go for it - I'm sure your intent will be satisfied by the results.

Without the intent being focused action becomes arbitrary
Oldwolf

Crap game mate..twisting the words.

Occam said 'dont complain if intent goes to shit'.
Because one didnt bother to think it through. [rationaly]

98% of the worlds human disasters are based on that VERY CONCEPT.
And you know it as truth.

Also , occam asks , did not the 'inquisition' have.
good intent?

Occam

PS
Belittling is a thing occam cannot do because you are just pixels on a screen.
How could occam belittle you with pixels?

[PhantomOpus]

Why assume that there is inherent goodness in mankind?

I see inherent selfishness every day.

[oldwolf]

Yes most of mankind needs to elevate but some also need to come together thatare "more Aware ' and raise the consciousness of "Aware Beings" So I always refer to the guiding forces behind the scenes of Aware Beings and realize fully that I am spirit having a human moment - or as I call it living through the eyes of a short timer - Can the hifher consciousness Act in behalf of All of Existence and raise levels of consciousness so that man or a group of entities can go "On to the Next level of learning - Beyond. As such all the old teachings show us that our intent must be pure and not determined by results .
This come through in all phases of all the sacred teaching - detachment - we must not be attached to the results - we must see all as an opportunity - we work with what is every moment deciding what is "best to help the Whole grow - which cannot but include Self - I call it being true to Self
Are not we all beings of spirit ?
or do you define yourself only by the short timer ?

And so when communicating I always Know that the Higher consciousness is Present. How mush interaction is in how well the Higher consciousness and the short timer interact; some stop the concept short and call the short timer as ruled by ego but Who Is the Experiencer - AND What. ... Consciousness originating from the I Am and going on to create more than One - the All. We are All part of the All which has it's origin in creation from One - A certain critical mass needed to ascend is talked about - such as the Anasazi The earth also goes through this ascension along with the group of Individuals Working in Wholeness. Suggests a concept similiar to different realities Being created - through INTENT.

Go to the libraries or the various groups forming and find their eclectic reading lists -
You Know I put my signature out there every time I post - it's what I Live/Love. What is a dreamer if the dreamer does not live/lioe it enuf to live/Love it into existence ?

CHANGE IS

[Occam]

Are not we all beings of spirit ?

Yes, occam is a being of spirit.
Yet he is also a short timer.

He is mortal.. and his future non-existance means nothing...
For others will take his place.

The only thing that maters..is the now.
And what we make it into..
Based on reason.love and desire.

Occam

[oldwolf]

OCCAM PLEASE GO BACK A UNFINISHED PORTION WAS READ BY YOU =MY ADDITION WENT IN AS SOON AS i REREAD IT SO DOES NOT SHOW UP AS AN EDIT

[Professor Jumbo]

I see good intentions that are acted upon that go awry and end up making things worse, every day. I have done it myself many times, tried to help in some way, and actually worsened things by acting on my good intentions. It is hard for me to get your point. Could you be more specific, cuz the way I read it, I just totally disagree.
Yes there are good intentional that go awry all the time, never did I imply that this did not happen, I don't know where you got that from. What I am saying is that ones intentions and the results of ones actions must be weighed together. Trying to separate them is silly since actions and intentions do not exist separate from each other except in cases where one has intentions that have yet to be acted upon. In such cases the question is moot anyhow for obvious reasons.

[mati]

most judgements of character consider intent. action without intent is random. Failure of an action is not judged so harshly when there are good intentions. to developement of character, intent keeps us going through whatever the consequences

[BlackGuardXIII]

Yes there are good intentional that go awry all the time, never did I imply that this did not happen, I don't know where you got that from. What I am saying is that ones intentions and the results of ones actions must be weighed together. Trying to separate them is silly since actions and intentions do not exist separate from each other except in cases where one has intentions that have yet to be acted upon. In such cases the question is moot anyhow for obvious reasons.
I did not intend to imply that you denied good intentions can go awry, Professor, I actually made a point of writing that I didn't fully get your point. I think I do now, though, thank you. I agree that separating results from intent is meaningless for the most part, though in court intent is a critical aspect to determine in order to decide criminality and sentencing.

[TrippinBTM]

I went with intentions, because there is no way you can know all the consequences of all your actions, but one can know their intentions (obviously). And if intentions are not important, then malicious intentions aren't bad if it leads to some good things...but what about all the bad it causes? I don't think you can boil this down to either/or situations, but I'd say intentions are more important because at least you mean well, and are doing the best you can. Can any more be asked of a person?

[Common Sense]

Prosecution: The prosecution will demonstrate, using DNA evidence, several eye-witnesses, and video footage, that the accused tortured, starved, and eventually murdered his victims.

Defense: The defense will show that the accused believed the deceased to be under demonic possession and was therefore justified in his actions.

Jury: We find the defendant not guilty.

That's how every single legal case would go if ethical actions were determined by good intent. The problem isn't that we can't predict all the consequences of our actions; it's that the agent is the only one who can know his or her intent. More specifically, it's that the agent can lie about his intent to those who are supposed to enforce ethical standards.

[Bikshu]

if we have pure intentions, the consequences of our actions will always be good.

we can make good consequences for some and ourselves, even if we have bad intentions, but somebody will get hurt.

Intentions are more important.

[TrippinBTM]

That's how every single legal case would go if ethical actions were determined by good intent. The problem isn't that we can't predict all the consequences of our actions; it's that the agent is the only one who can know his or her intent. More specifically, it's that the agent can lie about his intent to those who are supposed to enforce ethical standards.
I was talking about unintended consequences. Everyone knows if you stab or shoot someone, it's probably going to kill them. That's not an unintended consequence, because you know that there's a high likelihood of killing them when you partake in those actions.

But say you see someone who is on the side of the road with a flat tire, and you pull off to help. But little do you know you're only helping him get back to his home where he's going to rape and kill the girl in the trunk. Good intentions, bad results. But how could you have known? It wouldn't even cross your mind that such was the case. Or maybe you get into a fight and kill your opponent, and it turns out he had a girl locked up in his basement, who he was going to rape and kill. Bad intentions, good results.

Thus, some of the consequences of your actions are not under your control, all you can do is try your best.

Notice, people are sometimes charged with "intent to kill" or "intent to sell drugs." So intent also is important in our legal system.

[Common Sense]

I was talking about unintended consequences. Everyone knows if you stab or shoot someone, it's probably going to kill them. That's not an unintended consequence, because you know that there's a high likelihood of killing them when you partake in those actions.
I think you missed my point, which is probably my fault since my last post was poorly written. My point is that the moral agent (i.e. the person doing a moral or immoral act) is the only one who can know his intentions. Because of that, those who enforce the law would have to take a criminal at his word that he stole an old woman's purse so that he could give the money to starving children in Africa or some such nonsense. My point is that there would be no way to enforce any sort of law if the good were determined by our intentions.

But say you see someone who is on the side of the road with a flat tire, and you pull off to help. But little do you know you're only helping him get back to his home where he's going to rape and kill the girl in the trunk. Good intentions, bad results. But how could you have known? It wouldn't even cross your mind that such was the case. Or maybe you get into a fight and kill your opponent, and it turns out he had a girl locked up in his basement, who he was going to rape and kill. Bad intentions, good results.
But when we talk about the consequences of our actions we're obviously not talking about a causal chain as extended as the ones in your examples. So what if you kill a woman who would have given birth to the next Hitler had she lived? The point is that you killed her.

Notice, people are sometimes charged with "intent to kill" or "intent to sell drugs." So intent also is important in our legal system.
Now that's something I hadn't considered. But it seems that the legal concept of "intent" is significantly different than what we're thinking of in this discussion. I'm thinking of intent as inner-most, private thoughts. In the law, if someone is carrying 10 pounds of weed on him, he'll be charged with posession with intent to traffic based on the fact that he was carrying an obscene quantity of weed, not his mental state or whatever ideas may have been in his head at that time.

[mariecstasy]

i didnt read the responses, sorry if i repeat anyone.....i think that as we deal with the concequences of our actions, then our intentions tend to sway in a way that we feel will be more beneficial for us...be it towards love and kindness or whether it be towards revenge and such....
but i think that they are both equally important in helping us to find balance...


*goes back to read what others said so that their views didn't taint what i was going to say*

[steffan]

Iyou know, I think it all realy comes down to the golden rule 'do onto others as you would have them due onto you' and your honesty in interperating it. its the basics to ethics and right and wrong in general
whoever first said that was one insightfull person, and no, its not from any bible i have ever seen

[mariecstasy]

The consequences of our actions is more important to me..but doesnt the consequances of your actions being more important to you sway your intent?

[blueeyedson]

Intention is always the more important. it is the only thing out of the two that can be controlled. the consequences of your actions cannot be blamed on you unless your intentions were bad. bad things happen to good people, shit happens, ...and etc.

you can never blame the negative consequences on peoples good intentions. and if all things in the world were fair, you would never have to.

[mati]

common sense

if a person is lying, it might make a court misjudge but it does not alter the ethical question.

[Common Sense]

if a person is lying, it might make a court misjudge but it does not alter the ethical question.
Oh no? Then what higher standard is there for morality than the law?

[Meagain]

Here's the Buddhist perspective:

An early Buddhist teaching says: "What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow. Our life is the creation of our mind". Karma means intended action, and is a dynamic concept. It is not fate or predestination, but a consequence of what has gone before. In other words, you are now in circumstances because of your thoughts and decisions, and this is an on-going process. That is, new actions create new Karma.

Intention is a major part of Karma. If you come home and accidentally trip over the dog and hurt the animal, this is not intended and has no effect. However, after a hectic day, you come home and kick the poor dog, then negative Karma is generated. All the combined intended actions add up to what you are now.

Conditions In Violating Precepts

Five conditions of panatipata (Killing)

1. The being must be alive.
2. There must be the knowledge that it is a live being.
3. There must be an intention to cause death.
4. An act must be done to cause death.
5. There must be death, as the result of the said act.

If all the said five conditions are fulfilled, the first precept is violated.

Five conditions of Adinnadana (Stealing)

1. The property must be in the possession of another person.
2. There must be the knowledge that the property is in the possession of another person.
3. There must be an intention to steal.
4. There must be an act done to steal.
5. By that act the property must have been taken.

If all the said five conditions are fulfilled, the second precept is violated.

Four conditions to kamesumicchacara (Sexual Misconduct)

1. It must be a man or a woman with whom it is improper to have sexual intercourse.
2. There must be an intention to have such sexual misconduct with such man or woman.
3. There must be an act done to have such intercourse.
4. There must be enjoyment of the contact of the organs.

If all the said four conditions are fulfilled, the third precept is violated.

Four conditions of musavada (Telling lies)

1.The thing said must be untrue.
2. There must be an intention to deceive.
3.There must be an effort made as a result of the said intention.
4. The other must know the meaning of what is said.

If these conditions are fulfilled, the fourth precept is violated.

Three conditions of taking intoxicant s

1. It is an intoxicant.
2. There must be an intention to consume.
3. It is consumed.
If these conditions are fulfilled, the fifth precept is violated.

[mati]

telling the truth Oh no? Then what higher standard is there for morality than the law?

[Common Sense]

This needs some clarification. Do you mean that the truth about ethics is the greatest good? If so, what is the truth concerning moral judgements? Or, do you mean that telling the truth is the highest good? Also, is it in some way imperative or obligatory that we always tell the truth?


One good turn deserves another, so let me explain my positive position before arguing for it.

The law is the highest standard of good, since moral judgements have nothing to do with logic and are merely feelings that are in no way guided by reason. So, the social norms accepted by society as a whole are, literally, the greatest good. However, this does not in any way mean that one is somehow obligated to follow the letter of the law at all times.

We're getting a little off topic, but this is too much fun to pass up.

[oldwolf]

Law = group consensus or ignorance and not willing to stand up for Self.....Individual and Intent reigns supreme - law is excuse not necessary for higher forms of consciousness - however there are consequences - Always - and for whatever actions one chooses.

La de la - Life is change and so we all change - no matter how much we may try not to and to hold on to what was - and that is not off topic LOL

Have a great life, after all you create it with your Intent ha ha

[Common Sense]

Law = group consensus or ignorance and not willing to stand up for Self
First of all, that's incredibly vague, and it also sounds very childish to me. Would you please clarify and back it up with some proof?

Individual and Intent reigns supreme
Okay. Why? More specifically, why do the moral codes of individuals override the laws of society as a whole. You're blatantly giving people an excuse to take the law into their own hands.

law is excuse not necessary for higher forms of consciousness
I would appreciate it if we cut out the mystical mumbo-jumbo and stuck to things more tangible.

Life is change and so we all change - no matter how much we may try not to and to hold on to what was
I'm glad that you see I am advocating a conservative (in the Burkean sense, not the George W-ian sense) political philosophy. But you seem to have ignored what I said about people not being obligated to obey the law at all times. Also, I never said that there can be no change, although I certainly am implying that change should come about slowly.

[TrippinBTM]

Oh no? Then what higher standard is there for morality than the law?
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Seriously, man, that's funny. The laws are only as moral as the law makers. Look at the drug war, or the way many of our tax laws are set up to benefit the rich.

I think you missed my point, which is probably my fault since my last post was poorly written. My point is that the moral agent (i.e. the person doing a moral or immoral act) is the only one who can know his intentions. Because of that, those who enforce the law would have to take a criminal at his word that he stole an old woman's purse so that he could give the money to starving children in Africa or some such nonsense. My point is that there would be no way to enforce any sort of law if the good were determined by our intentions.
Good point. I guess, like mariecstasy is saying, both are important. There must be some way out of this question. I believe any question that leaves so many people stumped for so long must be a poor question that could be asked another way. But for now, I think that intentions, being the only thing we have control over, is very important. I suppose in judging someone, consequences have to be considered, because that's the effect of the intention.

I think that's it. the split between cause and effect is a false one, there is no split, because the cause is the effect of some other cause. It's not a bunch of chain links, it's more like a road of continuous happenings. We have to look at the road this person is walking down, not just isolated events, which mean nothing out of context.

[Common Sense]

The laws are only as moral as the law makers. Look at the drug war, or the way many of our tax laws are set up to benefit the rich.
You're missing my point. I asked, "What higher standard is there for a code of conduct other than the law?" Laws almost always reflect the social norms of any given society. So, what higher standard exists for moral law other than the general consensus of the members of a society? God is a possible answer, but I don't believe in God. I'm hard pressed to think of another good answer, since morality has absolutely nothing to do with logic in the least. If you or anyone else disagrees, then demonstrate how the principles of ethics can be deduced from logic because so far no one who disagrees with me has come up with anything close to an argument.

[Meagain]

Comman S.,
I suggest you get the book Lila, an inquiry into morals by Richard Pirsig (author of Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance).

In it he argues that the world is composed of nothing but moral value. Not subjects and objects but morals. Morals preceed subject and object.

Value creates objects. The values of art, morality, and religious experiences are emperically verifiable but this has not been recognized because of the assumption that only subjects and objects are real. He argues that if a thing has no value it cannot be distinguised from anyhthing else and does not exist. "The thing has not created the value. The value has created the thing."

This approach allows for more than one set of truths to exist. Value, or quality as Persig calls the highest value, exists above subject and object but does not exclude them. Any reality can be examined and explained in a provisionable manner in regards to value, until a better explaination comes along.

Pirsig claims that morals, value, or quality is the highest form of reality possible...and all else emulates from them. He substitutes the word value for causation and substance.
A causes B is the same as saying B values precondition A.
An object does not exist in and of itself, no one has ever found the substance that objects are made of, an object is only a stable pattern of value.
Values come in different forms.

To simplify:
There are dynamic patterns of value (or morals) and static patterns of value.

The dynamic patterns are constantly forming and reforming. This is the act of creation and can only be known by direct primary experience. He gives the example of a baby experiencing the world for the first time. The baby is presented with "distinctions" or primary experiences from "something", he knows not what. Dynamic Quality.
She begins to notice differences and then similarities in this something. In time, through memory, these distinctions are learned and valued and the baby begins to recognize "objects". The baby develops a complex pattern of these values gained through deduction, forming the universe of "things".
The formation is through meeting Dynamic Value, the form is Static Value.

Static Values are are stored as laws and traditions by society. They sustain life by stabilizing the chaos of Dynamic Quality. They do not change unless affected by Dynamic quailty. Neither can exist without the other.
Dynamic Qulity is freedom, Static Quality is order.

Static laws are formed from Dynamic encounters to promote order and allow the continuation of the society, these are good, moral laws. However, societies do not exist in a vacuum and are constantly affected by Dynamic encounters. As they meet these Dynamic encounters they must change to adapt or die. The first person to realize the need for this change will meet with resistance as he will be going againest tradition or the "good static" laws that have always worked before. The traditionalists/conservatives will view him as evil or bad, he is upsetting the status quo which has always worked before. He will regard himself as good, he has experienced "true" Dynamic Quality and wishes to help his society with his knowledge.

The problem developes when it is not clear if the "new" value is in reality going to help the society. This is never known until the change has already been made as the person wishing the change may or may not have had and correctly interperted a truely valid Dynamic experience.

Pirsig has identified several types of values:
If I remember correctly, Inanimate, animate/biological, social, and intellectual.

[Common Sense]

Personally, I think Pirsig has taken one too many hits of acid. The idea that values are empirically verifiable but haven't been seen yet seems self-contradictory to me. But I'll pick it up if I get the chance. Sounds interesting.

[Maggie Sugar]

Many people do very illadvised things due to what they "think" will happen, and don't think out their consequences. People do a lot of stupid, dangerous and damaging things, and later blame the results on "that isn't what I thought would happen."

Ever hear the phrase "The road to hell is paved with Good Intentions?"

I really don't know the answer to this question.

[Meagain]

CS,
LOL!

Actually Pirsig did go "insane" before he wrote Zen and the Art and was given the old shock treatment deal.
Lila was written because he felt he'd ducked out by refusing to define the term "Quality" in Zen.

Values are seen everyday, but not identified as such, we call one form of value matter. Matter is simply a state of being we value or assign a value to.

Maggie,
All I can say is what else do we have but intentions? Some are ill advised, some are engendered by stupidity, some through bad luck produce bad results....but if we never intend to do anything, nothing ever gets done.

[mati]

common sense

there is the law of society and then there is natural law. nature bats last.

[Common Sense]

There are no laws of nature regarding ethics. If there were, then they would be unbreakable like math or the law of gravity. But clearly anyone can violate any rule at any time. So no, moral laws are nothing like laws of nature. By the way, you should start making argument instead of just making assertions soon, or this is going to take forever. I'll try to speed the process along for now. If I asked you for an example of a natural law of ethics, you'd probably give an example like "Thou shall not kill". Then I'd ask you how you can equate killing to evil a priori, meaning that I'm asking you how you equate killing to evil in a strictly logical way i.e. in the same way a deduction works logically, or mathematics for that matter. Anyway, looking forward to your reply.

[mati]

societal consensus is one standard for morality, so is individual conscience. morality is subjective and not an object of reason, or a matter of fact that can be demonstrated. It is a perception of the mind or a feeling that is experienced. you asked for another standard of "good"and I suggested nature. we take pleasure in nature as do we approve of a virtuous moral actionThere are no laws of nature regarding ethics. If there were, then they would be unbreakable like math or the law of gravity. But clearly anyone can violate any rule at any time. So no, moral laws are nothing like laws of nature. By the way, you should start making argument instead of just making assertions soon, or this is going to take forever. I'll try to speed the process along for now. If I asked you for an example of a natural law of ethics, you'd probably give an example like "Thou shall not kill". Then I'd ask you how you can equate killing to evil a priori, meaning that I'm asking you how you equate killing to evil in a strictly logical way i.e. in the same way a deduction works logically, or mathematics for that matter. Anyway, looking forward to your reply.

[Common Sense]

societal consensus is one standard for morality, so is individual conscience.
But the question is, "What is the highest standard of morality?" I'm not asking for a list of all possible moral standards. I want to know what the greatest standard is. Since many people are a larger quantity of people than one person (obviously), that literally makes the standard greater, by definition, a priori.

morality is subjective and not an object of reason, or a matter of fact that can be demonstrated. It is a perception of the mind or a feeling that is experienced.
I agree, but that doesn't sound like what you were saying a minute ago. "Experienced" is probably not the word I'd use though, since you don't experience right-ness or wrong-ness with any of the five senses.

you asked for another standard of "good"and I suggested nature. we take pleasure in nature as do we approve of a virtuous moral action
I don't understand. Sure, we can take pleasure in nature, but what does that have to do with morality? How can taking pleasure in nature be a complete moral code? It might answer a moral question like, "Is littering wrong?" but what does it have to do with question about murder or theft? And if, as you say, morality is purely subjective, then why bother to give such a great moral status to nature, which is not a perceiving subject, or even human?

[Peacefairy420]

each is of itself so how can one really choose?

[steffan]

i used to tell my daughter, " I know you didnt meen too, but the point is you didnt meen not too"

[TrippinBTM]

But the question is, "What is the highest standard of morality?" I'm not asking for a list of all possible moral standards. I want to know what the greatest standard is.
Well, I agree with mati, you aren't going to find it with logic. Try meditation.

[Common Sense]

Of course you're not going to find it with logic. That's exactly what I've been saying this whole time. You won't find it with meditation either. It's a simple matter of recognising that morality is something rather trivial and based on gut feelings. If you want to know what the highest standard for morality is, then look for general consensus among the members of a particular society. There can be no higher standard. It's not a question of logic; it's a question of sociology.

[mati]

common sense: you said "there would be no way to enforce law if good were determined by our intention" because only we know our intentions. That is, unless we try to tell "the truth", then those who were listening would have a better opportunity to understand.The possibility of a defendant lying is generally presumed by courts. But most people will feel confident that when acquainted with all the particulars of a case, the circumstances and motives, they will be able to infer the actions of the accused. Without intent, our actions would be arbitrary and random. Whether they lie or not is important but does not essentially change the nature of the intention, which can be effectively traced through other means than the testimony of the defendant.

Now as to a standard for the "greater good", I don't think it necessarily needs to be applied to what is consensed by the numerically larger quantity of people. Of course it can be if that is how you would like to define it but it could also be interpreted qualitatively in respect to more than numerics and be felt by relatively few or even one individual.

Nature, as a matter of fact, is neither moral or amoral, it simply is. Our sense of morals is the disapproval or approval we feel when contemplating action. A conscious person may be outraged by the clear-cutting of the ancient redwoods, and this regardless of what society thinks. Moral standards vary and who is to say what, in the final analysis, will be the "higher good". Frame of reference is where its' at. There are many ways to look at it and it may turn out in the long run that how we interact with nature will be as important as how we interact with each other.

[squawkers7]

Do you like hearing...
Ooops.
It was an accident.
I didn't think that would happen.
I didn't mean to.
It wasn't my fault.
Couldn't be helped.
Maybe it can be fixed.
Now I know for next time.
I wasn't thinking.
I meant well.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.It's the thought that counts
I'm so sick of that one....if ya sit there thinking of some good intention but never get off your ass to do anything then what good is the thought?
Should I get mad cuz ya did nothing all day- didn't help out or just so "oh well, least ya thought about it"

[Ranger]

Would you rather have someone act towards you with good intentions or with bad???

[Ranger]

I think you missed my point, which is probably my fault since my last post was poorly written. My point is that the moral agent (i.e. the person doing a moral or immoral act) is the only one who can know his intentions. Because of that, those who enforce the law would have to take a criminal at his word that he stole an old woman's purse so that he could give the money to starving children in Africa or some such nonsense. My point is that there would be no way to enforce any sort of law if the good were determined by our intentions.Intent in the way most seem to be regarding it here does have standing under the law in most states. Say if one steals a car inorder to rush a seriously injured person in danger of dying to medical help and is overtaken speeding in the process, in most states there are provisions in the law to find this a justified action.....

[Green]

Let us know what you all think...
Oops I voted for wrong one. I think that what really happens is more important than what you mean to happen because everybody only does what they think is best but what they think is best could be wrong or currupted especially in todays society so I think that what really happens is more important.

[cerridwen]

I believe that as well as our intentions may be, the consequenses of those actions is much more important.

[Rhythm]

I would say in general it's the result which matters but I would never accept questionable intentions by those close to me.

And distance is very relevant...

[Occam]

Do we all want what is good?
No

Many only want what happens.
And many only want what they want.
And that is half of humanity.
Then the rationalisation begins

Good is a ideal.
As is wisdom.

Each of us can have both. That is our potential.
A good person, a wise person, will never admit such.

But ego/materialsim glories in it's display.

Occam

[Zajko]

It all boils down to meaning vs. matter. Our intentions give our lives meaning but it is their consequences that matter. One can live life with no intention other than to enjoy and make the best if whatever comes, and still leave the world a better place - or as Christopher Baldwin said (through his character Bruno): "The road to heaven is paved with bad intentions."

[Occam]

It all boils down to meaning vs. matter. Our intentions give our lives meaning but it is their consequences that matter. One can live life with no intention other than to enjoy and make the best if whatever comes, and still leave the world a better place - or as Christopher Baldwin said (through his character Bruno): "The road to heaven is paved with bad intentions." Zajko

LOL
Occam lives his life to enjoy it, and make the best of all that comes.
And when he get tired of that , he thinks of other people.
For a while.

And what he calls a 'while' seems be, according to others, more than needed to get into heaven.
But occam does'nt want to go there.
Please no,,,no......noOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Anywhere but where there are no more questions or truths to seek.
Anywhere but where the only puprose, is anothers.

Occam

[hippypaul]

God wants to see your scars not hear your story

[TokeTrip]

Lots of burnt out hippies have/had good intentions, but now are just a burden to society and provide nothing for them or others, except for anti-war rhetoric.

[hippypaul]

Yep - that's me - a burden to society. Might be time for the black capsule (grin). But having my good intentions recognized makes all the difference.

[freakylady]

.....

[sandpedlar]

You should read some Kant, if you can stomach it, to get a really good treatise on intent v outcome. Kant says that the only thing on this earth that can be called unequivically "good" is a good will.
It is not in one's power to control the outcome of one's actions, only the intent. The intent should only be powered by the drive to carry out one's duty, not because one wishes or doesn't wish to do this or that, but because one must in order to fulfill one's purpose as a human. I could go on for hours about Kant.
Let me know!

[Occam]

You should read some Kant, if you can stomach it, to get a really good treatise on intent v outcome. Kant says that the only thing on this earth that can be called unequivically "good" is a good will.
It is not in one's power to control the outcome of one's actions, only the intent. The intent should only be powered by the drive to carry out one's duty, not because one wishes or doesn't wish to do this or that, but because one must in order to fulfill one's purpose as a human. I could go on for hours about Kant.
Let me know! Sandpedlar

Yeh..Kants 'critique of pure reason' was one where 'if you can stomach it'
applies..if some books are dense, copr was neutroniumhttp://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

Occam agrees with this position..desire has no place. One must act as
human being to be a human being. And occam defines a human being
morally as one who places the inherent rights of all other human beings
as equal to their own.
If u see a man beat a child/woman with a stick. U must ACT to defendthose being deprived of their inherent rights as if it were u yourself being beaten.. to do nothing is to abandon ones humanity to fear and self interest.

Occam

[DeadHead~]

What would you rather have,

A dude try to save you from a dog thats attacking you, so he tries to shoot it and ends up shooting and killing you?

Or a dude just walk away and act like its not his buisness and the dog bites your leg and scrapes you up a little, but you still walk home and are alive?

We need intentions, and no one should really be beat down if they screwed something up. If they were really, just trying to help.

However I would rather have a happy outcome that wasn't exactly intended then a shitty one that was "intended" to work out well.

[Occam]

Occams example was a MAN beating a woman/child with a stick
BAD odds for the victims...
A dog attacking a man has VERY poor odds if the man has any brains.
occam was a postman once.. he knows. as many a poor fool dog does as well.

A man who tries to stop a dog attack with a gun is an idiot...
And the example does not count anyway.. for dogs do not act by moral code.
The subject of this threat

Occam

[DeadHead~]

Alright, alright Occam, you got me.
Good point, but I'm sure you get the basic princible about what i was trying to say.

Sorry i didn't read your post, sounds like the same thing i was trying to say. haha

Peace.

[oldwolf]

Intent is something that is followed by Action
Intentions often are followed by excuses
whereas what may be taken as consequences for our actions often have many more participants than just 1 and therefore is not controlled by any 1 single act.

[synaptic aether]

wow

...

i can't answer.

way too deep

...for a drunk tired hungry person, anyway

but holy shit, that's one hellofa question.

[mamaboogie]

all polls should have an "other" option. It totally depends on the situation at hand. Overall, I think the actions of other people are all we really know. We never really know what their original intentions were, only what they say they were. So the same would go for us as well, pragmatically, all that really matters (makes any difference) is our actions. Not the consequences of our actions, but our actions themselves, because we cannot accurately predict the consequences of what we do ahead of time.


edited again....
the way the poll is worded, is like asking what is more important, the future or the past? But what is really important is the NOW, and not what has already happened or what is yet to come. The only thing we have any control over is right now. We can learn from the past, and be proactive in our attempts to have better experiences in the future, but we are NOW and that is all we can do.

[Occam]

all polls should have an "other" option. It totally depends on the situation at hand. Overall, I think the actions of other people are all we really know. We never really know what their original intentions were, only what they say they were. So the same would go for us as well, pragmatically, all that really matters (makes any difference) is our actions. Not the consequences of our actions, but our actions themselves, because we cannot accurately predict the consequences of what we do ahead of time.


edited again....
the way the poll is worded, is like asking what is more important, the future or the past? But what is really important is the NOW, and not what has already happened or what is yet to come. The only thing we have any control over is right now. We can learn from the past, and be proactive in our attempts to have better experiences in the future, but we are NOW and that is all we can do.
Mama

Yes.. What was really happening in those heads will always be a mystery.
The intent.. Be it good or bad or any flavour between. Is the weak point.
Desire we do..and to actualize it... we make intent.
Yet to intend is to plan. And humans are often lacking in vital information, or vital skills to make intent work..
thus ACT... occurs often in the wrong place, or wrong time.

And we end up with human truisms like
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Agree totally on living in the NOW. The now is all that exists.
past and future are concepts only.

Occam

[FreakerSoup]

Without reading the thread, I would say, ethically speaking, the intention. If your actions are intended to be good, but have bad side effects, it's not an ethical question. Ethically, your choice was fine. Once the side effect becomes known, it is unethical to continue the action.

[Occam]

Ethically, your choice was fine. Once the side effect becomes known, it is unethical to continue the action.
Freaker

And this supports occams proposition.
'Side effects' are but what we did not plan for.
Our lack of understanding results in acts that may produce the effect we wish. But with near unacceptable 'side effects'

All we can really do.. is our best.
Which means gaining as much understanding as we can so our actions are based in reality as best we can plan them.

Occam

[WhisperingWoods]

well, i voted for 'the consequences of our actions' but upon further thought, maybe i should have voted otherwise.
like blackguard said, good intentions don't mean much when your actions have wreaked havoc on someone else's life.
but we've all been forgiven by our mothers with the phrase, 'it's the thought that counts'. isn't the inherent goodness of mankind more important than our final outcome? whether we prosper or bomb out, isn't it enough that we were good?
What's bad is when people *think they are "good," yet effectively fuck everything up. Idiocy combined with good intentions can cause irrepairable damage.

[themnax]

our intentions come first of course, but only as long as we don't expect them to do the work of rigourously honestly and objectivitly doing our thinking for us.

there is one slight problem though, and that is the only one who can ever really know our intentions, is ourself.

whereas our actions and the consiquences of our actions, are observable to all.

=^^=
.../\...

[Occam]

there is one slight problem though, and that is the only one who can ever really know our intentions, is ourself.
whereas our actions and the consiquences of our actions, are observable to all.

=^^=
.../\... Themnax

Exactly..

And thus, our intentions, become real by our actions. Are judged
And often, by the eye of reason.
[judgement by the eye of desire is of no meaning.]

That eye has no sympathy or feeling. That is it's purpose.
That is what makes us rational beings

So many want to be called rational beings...but never apply reason.

Occam

[fat_tony]

If you believe that the physical world is all there is then consequences are by far the most important part. If you subscribe to a more dualistic philosophy then I think the intention aspect is more important spiritually as lets face it, sometimes even your best plans will go tits up.

[bamboo]

Apparently many Americans think that intentions are of no value what so ever. Atleast we seem to sue a lot of people and corporations who may have wonderful intentions when the "on the ground results" don't suit us.

I love Modern American "ethics"......

[Columbo]

Ok suppose you intend to allieviate the suffering of some starving people, and that is counted as a moral act. It is only moral if you achieve that goal.
Suppose all you end up doing is lining the pockets of corrupt politicians, you may be roped into a scandal and be seen as corrupt even though your intentions were good.
Without intentions there cannot be moral consequences, but whether good intention is a necessary or sufficient condition for a moral outcome is a different thing.
You could not be judged moral if you were a drug dealer who was going to shoot someone dead because they owed you money for a rock of crack, not even if in attempting to shoot them you missed and burst the tyre of a car that was being used as a gettaway in a robbery. People may praise you for being moral and helping the police catch a robber, but surely not if they knew your original intention. Similarly, if you shot the gun at the tyre of a gettaway car but missed and killed a innocent bystander, you would most likely not recieve moral acclaim for your attempt to do good. That is to say, on the face of it consequence is everything, but I dont think it is.
It would seem that intentions only count if you had a good intention and then achieved the goal you aimed for.
It is not difficult therefore to see the problem that would be encountered in saying that consequences are important - whether a consequence is important will rest upon whether youre intention was good

[Kaiser 4 Sunflowers]

The result of our actions.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Occam wrote most of what I wanted to, so all that is left is this: It is more important to the individual what his/her intent was, but the result is what is more important to the affected party. As Occam said, try your best, that is all you can do. If you intended good, but bad resulted, all you can do is try to fix it as best you can and take responsibility for your actions.

[dollydagger]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
couldn't have said it better myself.

[Mr. Graey Rufur King]

Clearly the consequences and results are more important than your intentions, because if something was a result...it went well, but if you're shooting at a 1:20 chance of doing something good, and fuck up and ruin a dozen peoples lives, you're much worse off than you started.

[3xi]

the consequences to our actions show us whether or not our intentions where correct.

[SILVERWOLF_87]

I think both are of equal importance, but while intentions don't have the possibility of causing harm or benefit to others, actions do. Therefore, we must be vigilant to only take action that will not cause undue harm to others.

[TattoedAquarian]

As long as your heart is in the right place whatever it takes. If people want help. But make sure that it's what they want.

But please people - Wait for people/children to figure things out on their own.

Progress should not be forced. Ever. It just has to grow and mature as the world grows and matures.

[lifelovefun]

There never are any consequences. The idea of consequence is used to control people to make them afraid to take action

[Puffis]

"Sorry man, I thought it'd be nice to have ur house warm when you came home, I didn't know your cat would knock down 1 of the candles and burn down ur house, my bad"

[repro-bait]

lifelovefun said it all........end of story.

[3xi]

As long as your heart is in the right place whatever it takes. If people want help. But make sure that it's what they want.

hint - if they want help they will ask for it!

giving help to someone who does not want it is a form of abuse.

[Michaela]

An intention is a thought containing a purpose; aimed towards a goal that one is seeking to accomplish. Subsequently, an action is required to bring about the goal that is thought about being sought. Whether one is successful or unsuccessful depends upon whether or not the desired result was brought about. And, it follows that part of the result - good or bad - will also have a
consequence - it is unavoidable.

So, intentions and consequences kind of go hand in hand, because every intention that turns into an action that is carried out will unavoidably have a result - as well as a consequence - whether it be good or bad.

It's important to understand that there are two levels of intentions: one that turns into an action that is carried out; and one that does not turn into an action but simply remains a thought in someone's mind. There are consequences - good or bad - to both levels of intentions. The intention that turns into an action that is successful in accomplishing the desired goal, theoretically results in good consequences (providing the goal was good and not evil). The intention that goes nowhere and remains as only a thought in someone's mind can have consequences as well; undoubtedly. Example: "I had intended to check the water & oil levels in my automobile for the last five months because the idiot lights in my dash don't work, but I didn't check the levels. Today I seized the engine because it had no water or oil in it."
The thought containing the intention did not turn into an action here - it simply remained as only a thought to do something in this person's mind. The consequence for taking no action was the loss of the use of their car.
Moral of the Story: You don't have to take an action to result in a consequence.

So, I am hard-pressed to say what is most important: an intention or a consequence; for no one can be certain at the outset of accomplishing a goal whether or not they will be successful at it, because one can never know for certain what they might encounter along the way. I guess I go with the mindset of 'giving it all you've got' while you're doing the right thing for the right reason; keep your eye on the mark and don't lose sight of where you're going; and then you've got the best chance of accomplishing whatever it is you set out to do. I don't think anyone should ever not try to accomplish something simply because they might not do so - we all have to go at it with the best we've got.

Sincere Regards, Michaela
_____________________________________

"They will never make a perfect heart until they
make one that can't be broken."
The Wizard, "The Wizard of Oz"
_____________________________________

[Autentique]

I think good intentions are important, but also to carry out those actions as were intended and not the opposite. I've met to many people who take refuge behind their intentions and the "I didnt mean to", and when you see this is a habit, you gotta stop and wonder: does this person really means well?
I personally believe that all it takes to act according to one's intentions is for them to be really honest, keeping them in mind and just taking the moment to think if the action you are gonna take goes against your purpose, and if it does, then why do it?
The more honest we are with ourselves and the people around us, the better synchronized our intentions and actions will be.

[Michaela]

I've met to many people who take refuge behind their intentions and the "I didnt mean to", and when you see this is a habit, you gotta stop and wonder: does this person really means well?
I personally believe that all it takes to act according to one's intentions is for them to be really honest, keeping them in mind and just taking the moment to think if the action you are gonna take goes against your purpose, and if it does, then why do it?
.Autentique - you make a two good points here - you seem to possess wisdom beyond your chronological years ... it took me longer in life to realize both. You are very correct in observing repeated behavior in another; which gives rise to the thought: "does this person really mean well?" And your point about pausing to take a moment to think if one's proposed action will go against their purpose - right on! Your wisdom will serve you well in life, my friend.

Sincere Regards, Michaela
____________________________________

"They will never make a perfect heart until
they make one that can't be broken."
The Wizard, "The Wizard of Oz"
_____________________________________

[Autentique]

Autentique - you make a two good points here - you seem to possess wisdom beyond your chronological years ... it took me longer in life to realize both. You are very correct in observing repeated behavior in another; which gives rise to the thought: "does this person really mean well?" And your point about pausing to take a moment to think if one's proposed action will go against their purpose - right on! Your wisdom will serve you well in life, my friend.
Thank you Michaela, you got a very pretty name. I guess I've seen this a lot in the people around me, so I catched up quickly :tongue:. I know there are moments when I've done the same and I think as we grow up we learn to be true to what we think and who we are, it does take time, but in the long run it's the most rewarding. There are just some people who never seem to get free of that cycle of mismatch between intentions/action, my brother is one of the greatest example of that. Thank you again, I had a really bad today and this cheers me up a little :)

[Eternally Altered]

Your intentions hardly mean anything outside of your own head. Especially if the outcome is negative. The consequences of your actions are what effects people and has an impact on the people around you. Your intentions may alter the way people feel about the outcome, but the outcome is still the same, and still what should be regarded.

[rainbow_magnolia]

consequences,
without them how would we learn lifes lessons??

we wouldn't

[stigmerica]

IMO any answer to this question is subjective. Merely an opinion backed with some kind of reasoning, which can be rationalized / argued away until the end of time. Thus, I can't pick one over the other. It's like asking, "What's better: heads or tails?" So being how I am, I guess I'd say that they're both of equal significance to me.

Also, it'd seem to me that saying intentions don't matter is like saying we should just do whatever we want without regard for the outcome.

[Reefer Rogue]

Our intentions because we control these. Consequences sometimes fall beyond our control. If we have good intentions, then perhaps it could be argued more good consequences would arise.

[tigerchild]

intensions, because surely the very first consequences happened only because someone intended something, probably to live and get food
however i get the point about learning lessons, and now i have no idea!

[Jimmy P]

neither. our actions are the important part, not the consequences of them. although it is important to keep the consequences in mind. intentions are just untaken actions and count for nothing real.

[MotherLoveBone]

In my life I have found that good intentions in addition to a good dose of reality, understanding limitations and adhering to common sense yeilds outcomes that are generally favorable. Good intentions alone will not necessarily lead to good consequences, but in my mind they are a big part of the equation.

[asynchronicity]

For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. Therefore, all actions have a "good" and a "bad" consequence. We may not know both sides of the consequence. We may never know any consequence. It is the intention that counts.

[MotherLoveBone]

For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. Therefore, all actions have a "good" and a "bad" consequence. We may not know both sides of the consequence. We may never know any consequence. It is the intention that counts.So true. And to really answer this question, We must clarify whether we are talking about personal, societal, short term, long term etc etc...consequences. And of course, "good" in one context could be "bad" in another. To calculate the actual and total results of our actions would be an extremely difficult task, and unless we have done exactly that, no single answer to this question is better than the next one. But none the less, very interesting to ponder.

[CanniEvergrow]

The devil fools with the best laid plans. But our intetions are whats important in spite of this.

[LanSLIde]

One with the truest of intentions should take into account possible outcomes before manifesting intentions to action