A very old and basic ethical question...

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...

 

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

 

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

 

God wants to see your scars not hear your story

 

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.

 

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.

 

.....

 

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 neutronium

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

wow

...

i can't answer.

way too deep

...for a drunk tired hungry person, anyway

but holy shit, that's one hellofa question.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

What's bad is when people *think they are "good," yet effectively fuck everything up. Idiocy combined with good intentions can cause irrepairable damage.