A very old and basic ethical question...

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

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.

 

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*

 

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

 

but doesnt the consequances of your actions being more important to you sway your intent?

 

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.

 

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?

 

telling the truth

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

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.

I would appreciate it if we cut out the mystical mumbo-jumbo and stuck to things more tangible.

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.