Do intentions matter more than acts?

[Cail]

Direct question Vraith. You're drowning. I want to be famous. I consider saving you for the sole purpose of getting on TV and being loved by strangers.

Based on my intentions, would you prefer that I let you drown?

Of course not. Not least because I value my life/future. Being is better than not being.
But bad is dead, Best is I can value the outcome---my life--- AND value YOU. Which, in the described situation, I don't. There's nothing "good" about you using me as an object for your glorification.

And if you don't know why he saved you? Like he saved you and walked away before anybody learned what his motivation was?

Exactly Fist, no one knows what anyone's motives are. From what Vraith's saying, he can't judge an act without knowing motive (based on the statement, "There's nothing "good" about you using me as an object for your glorification").

So in order to be consistent, death has to be preferable to being saved by someone not operating under the correct motive (whatever that may be).

[Skyweir]

V .. your funny noted _

Ok V you provided this model to demonstrate your point

Intent + Act = Result + Effect

But this model doesnt adequately deconstruct intent which is your focus, is it not?

We need to break down 'intent' .. *and not a scientist*

First motivation is the precursor to intent, is it not?

So intent, can be broken down into various elements.

Which may be determined by an individual's:
-Knowledge or perhaps more applicably, subjective understanding,
-The existing empirical facts,
-Corroborative observations,
-Individual desire, and
-Individual autonomy, or the presence of individual autonomy.

Please add other relevant elements should you believe there are others that should be included ____

Then we need to break down the remaining three structures in your model, no?

Act
-What was the act?
-What actions comprised the act, as sometimes there are multiple components.
And well why the fuck not _________ this is your model after all _

Result
-What was the result?

Effect
-What effect has the result had?
-Impact of the action had?
-Ripple effect?

So how the fuck can a determination be made whether an action passes the good, useful, valuable test, with all of this. The only way I can see a value judgement being reached through a methodology like this is from an analysis of the Effect. To my mind anyway.

Running all the previous scenarios through this model does not advance an understanding of the value an act of public service. Yes it would distinguish motivation, but as Cail noted above motivation and intent is quite often an unknown. So being an unknown does it or would it change the result or the effect.

The only way it could, in my mind is on a far grander scale, where intent and motivation are often identified long after the act and where a result does not materialise in a positive effect.

Like your witch analogy, or for that matter the Christian Crusades etc. Or perhaps more compellingly some of the evangelical missionary work that may seem on the face of it to bring about some good, but years down the track significant costs and losses to a people are in fact the result.

[Linna Heartbooger]

...Whether it's intentions or effects, people are going to disagree on what it means, and what it requires, to be good.

Okay, THIS is good. (But will I get anyone to agree with me? Aahhh!)
Just like one man's trash is another man's treasure, my evil is your good, and your good is my evil.
And actually if we chose any pair of people on the Watch, each pair of peeps would find major things where each could say "Your bad is my good / your good is my bad."

Direct question Vraith. You're drowning. I want to be famous. I consider saving you for the sole purpose of getting on TV and being loved by strangers.

Based on my intentions, would you prefer that I let you drown?

This question is not robust in the real world.
Because in the real world EVERY darn person has mixed motives all the darn time.
Few people are are SO rent of their humanity that they wouldn't ALSO want to to preserve human life.
It's just that the expectation of human praise (or the fear of human excoriation!) -MIGHT- push someone that last bit to taking courageous action to rescue that drowning man.
When they're back on the shore, the rescuer's main gladness in the moment would probably still be life-saving good that has come to the rescued one.

But if I was rescued from drowning by someone who saw me PRIMARILY as a way to acquire a famous name... I might see a calculation in the eyes for a split second, and either I would mindlessly discard the evidence and go my merry way...
...or I'd linger and think about it.
And if I let myself really believe what I was seeing... my blood would run cold.

SoulBiter demonstrated that both the good and the ill can be at work within the same community.
Maybe even the same person. (Some of those folks who cuss out other drivers surely give to people who lost everything in disasters. I know people like that.)
How much of a stretch is it to say that sometimes the good and the ill can both be at work in a single action?

The only way it could, in my mind is on a far grander scale, where intent and motivation are often identified long after the act and where a result does not materialise in a positive effect.

I don't think this is the -only- way of discerning motivations...
BUT I think the element of time helps a TON.
That way, you put some distance between you and your action, look back on it... or put some distance between you and your neighbor's action.
(Oh! Btw, sky, you totally responded to my post, and I saw it! It just got moved to this thread when Fist split it off. b/c there was also content pertinent to this debate.)

[Fist and Faith]

There is something prior to the intention that, despite being different between the two, leads to the same intention.

Yea, there's something prior...but that's a different topic/debate. So far here, we're assuming the intention has a reason and the person has a choice. Choices/intentions based on what is are fundamentally different from choices based on what isn't. We're only human, so we can make mistakes/errors in "reality" based choices. [[and/or have bad intentions] But it isn't the reality that causes the error, it's our understanding.
In the myth-based, perfect understanding of the myth can and does CAUSE the error and/or CAUSE bad intentions disguised as "good"---thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, for instance. Witches aren't real...never were. The word might be a mistranslation. Killing people for their disagreement with your religion is wrong. [[and I reiterate it isn't only religious systems/ideologies that end up in bad places]].

There are more myths than you can shake a stick at. There are more versions of Christianity than you can shake a stick at. I'm sure there a myths that don't contradict reality in any way. They may posit things for which there is not the slightest evidence, while not opposing the scientific method or anything that is verifiable.

And it's possible that one myth or another insists on something that you would consider "good", without adding anything that you would consider "bad".

You can show that Religion X has bad intentions in all instances. You can show that Religion Y has bad intentions in Scenario 1. But you can't show that all religions must always have bad intentions in all scenarios.

[Cail]

Direct question Vraith. You're drowning. I want to be famous. I consider saving you for the sole purpose of getting on TV and being loved by strangers.

Based on my intentions, would you prefer that I let you drown?

This question is not robust in the real world.
Because in the real world EVERY darn person has mixed motives all the darn time.
Few people are are SO rent of their humanity that they wouldn't ALSO want to to preserve human life.
It's just that the expectation of human praise (or the fear of human excoriation!) -MIGHT- push someone that last bit to taking courageous action to rescue that drowning man.
When they're back on the shore, the rescuer's main gladness in the moment would probably still be life-saving good that has come to the rescued one.

But if I was rescued from drowning by someone who saw me PRIMARILY as a way to acquire a famous name... I might see a calculation in the eyes for a split second, and either I would mindlessly discard the evidence and go my merry way...
...or I'd linger and think about it.
And if I let myself really believe what I was seeing... my blood would run cold.

This response fascinates me. If someone does something good to/for me, I couldn't care any less what their motivation is. Why should I? I've benefited, so why should I care why someone did something?

Motive and intent do come into play when negative things happen, as either aggravating or mitigating factors, but when something positive happens, why waste your time looking a gift horse in the mouth?

Just seems like you're looking for something to be upset about.

[Skyweir]

With the exception of your last sentence those comments are in my mind absolutely spot on. Especially the .. "looking a gift horse in the mouth" comment.

But I completely appreciate Linnas point .. and that humans are complex and may be comprised of mixed motivations .. or perhaps considerations. "Should I jump in" "I cant swim" "Im afraid" "I must do something" "oh it's him!" "Fuck him, let him drown" , "nah I'll get my hair wet", "oh my god it's him, I love him" .. jumps in _

Yes I concede none of that is motivation or intent lol

And more accurately inner dialogue or narrative. But meh it was a bit of fun _

I agree Linna humans are complex and very often conflicted with mixed motives or a multitude of motives.

Which perhaps presents a compelling reason to disregard motive entirely and focus on the ACT not the ACTOR. And to be able to make a determination of the value of that ACT .. we can only look to the RESULT and EFFECT.

It's interesting though that when making a value, quality determination would we need to consider CAUSE?

[Vraith]

Motive and intent do come into play when negative things happen, as either aggravating or mitigating factors,

but when something positive happens, why waste your time looking a gift horse in the mouth?

I'd agree the first part is mostly so---it's part of the reason why when we find a body with a bullet in the heart it isn't always murder, or even always a crime at all.

But the second part...it might not matter at all. Especially in a one-time occurrence. It might not matter to the particular saved life why it was saved, yet matter in a larger sense...especially when it is NOT a one-time event, but part of a larger intentional frame, with many outcomes.

I mean, the Russian Revolution had a long string of good outcomes for quite a large number of people---until it didn't.
And the reasons it didn't were the intentions of the leaders and the choices made by the followers based on ideology [created/promoted by those leaders] and belief in those leaders.

I know, gross simplification. Which brings me to Sky---your deconstruction is a worthy thing. I could probably add some things, and debate some details, but no real need to.
Cuz it's a fact that, despite my preference for knowing all the details and that intentions damn well DO matter [[in other domains, too---I strongly disagree with the people who say an author's intentions don't matter]] the world is both complicated and complex and circumstances force us to decide with little or no relevant information, and from first-person limited point of view, or based on data from an unreliable narrator.

For fun:
Say you run across a corpse and someone bent over it, crying.
The person says "I meant [intended] to kill her." Then refuses to say anything else at all.
You find no weapon, high point to push off, or other means...thoroughly examine the body...autopsy, blood tests, all of it. You can find no cause of death. Did the person commit murder?
You simply can't judge for certain, you have a deficit of facts.
For all you know, the weeping person was weeping due to state of shock and muttering about a nightmare he had where he meant to...or he MEANT to kill her, but she died before he got the chance...or, might have been planning to kill her, but now realizes how terribly she was loved/will be missed...or had previously attempted murder, but she survived...and now, just died. [[Too late? The insurance policy expired already? Tears of financial loss...At LAST---worked out for the best, praise the Old Gods, tears of joy]].
The opposite is just as real.
You can have all or most of the facts, and STILL be subject to an error/deficit in judgment of the outcome if you don't know the intentions.

^^^^^aware of the semi-silliness of that. Don't care. Fun.^^^^

[Fist and Faith]

Vraith, I agree with that entire post. I disagree that it is impossible for anyone to do anything good motivated by their faith. I disagree that it's possible to know that every possible, or even actual, system of faith can only have bad intentions, by anybody's definition.

[Skyweir]

Motive and intent do come into play when negative things happen, as either aggravating or mitigating factors,

but when something positive happens, why waste your time looking a gift horse in the mouth?

I'd agree the first part is mostly so---it's part of the reason why when we find a body with a bullet in the heart it isn't always murder, or even always a crime at all.

But the second part...it might not matter at all. Especially in a one-time occurrence. It might not matter to the particular saved life why it was saved, yet matter in a larger sense...especially when it is NOT a one-time event, but part of a larger intentional frame, with many outcomes.

I mean, the Russian Revolution had a long string of good outcomes for quite a large number of people---until it didn't.
And the reasons it didn't were the intentions of the leaders and the choices made by the followers based on ideology [created/promoted by those leaders] and belief in those leaders.

I know, gross simplification. Which brings me to Sky---your deconstruction is a worthy thing. I could probably add some things, and debate some details, but no real need to.
Cuz it's a fact that, despite my preference for knowing all the details and that intentions damn well DO matter [[in other domains, too---I strongly disagree with the people who say an author's intentions don't matter]] the world is both complicated and complex and circumstances force us to decide with little or no relevant information, and from first-person limited point of view, or based on data from an unreliable narrator.

For fun:
Say you run across a corpse and someone bent over it, crying.
The person says "I meant [intended] to kill her." Then refuses to say anything else at all.
You find no weapon, high point to push off, or other means...thoroughly examine the body...autopsy, blood tests, all of it. You can find no cause of death. Did the person commit murder?
You simply can't judge for certain, you have a deficit of facts.
For all you know, the weeping person was weeping due to state of shock and muttering about a nightmare he had where he meant to...or he MEANT to kill her, but she died before he got the chance...or, might have been planning to kill her, but now realizes how terribly she was loved/will be missed...or had previously attempted murder, but she survived...and now, just died. [[Too late? The insurance policy expired already? Tears of financial loss...At LAST---worked out for the best, praise the Old Gods, tears of joy]].
The opposite is just as real.
You can have all or most of the facts, and STILL be subject to an error/deficit in judgment of the outcome if you don't know the intentions.

^^^^^aware of the semi-silliness of that. Don't care. Fun.^^^^

mmm ... I cant help but think you mixed up the points I addressed to you. But meh Ok. What your fun analogy does is reinforces the difficulty of identifying intent. And the danger of assumptions.

And I love a bit of harmless fun .. so have at it ... big fan

I had tremendous difficulty addressing the value of an act using your model.

Now that could well be because Im not as smart as you and am not a scientist.. do not have scientific mind.

[Vraith]

I had tremendous difficulty addressing the value of an act using your model.

Now that could well be because Im not as smart as you

On the second, I don't know that that is true, and not at all sure it would matter if it WAS true.

On the first...the difficulty isn't CAUSED by my model. The tremendous difficulty is caused by the fact that the value of acts is tremendously complex/complicated.
It only SEEMS simpler normally because we have numerous structures---biological, behavioral, socio-cultural, etc.---that take shortcuts, work by clumping/clustering/rules of thumb. And limited ranges of giving a damn, and identity/self-hood oaths. [[surely other things as well, but those are the largest and most common, I think]].

[Cail]

Vraith, the way I'm reading your comments, it sure sounds like you're advocating for the existence of hard and fast, universally, "good" or, "bad" motivations or acts. Sort of like a secular set of Commandments. I'm guessing that you don't intend that.

So how do you define a good or bad intention?

[Revan]

Depends on the circumstances; in criminal law for example, intentions matter more than acts; hence why in a court of law there's a difference between manslaughter and murder. The intentions behind an act can predict future behaviour.

However when it comes to charity the act matters more than the intention... if the person giving the charity gives it to aggrandise him or herself... who cares? So long as the act has a meaningful impact?

[Avatar]

Doesn't matter more in law, but it is taken into account. The outcome is still that somebody died, but your intent can alter your level of culpability.

--A

[Revan]

Doesn't matter more in law, but it is taken into account. The outcome is still that somebody died, but your intent can alter your level of culpability.

--A

That's what I meant.

Cut me some slack its been a full decade since I was posting arguments online.

And I, being the young punk I was, sucked at it then too

[Skyweir]

Doesn't matter more in law, but it is taken into account. The outcome is still that somebody died, but your intent can alter your level of culpability.

--A

That's what I meant.

Cut me some slack its been a full decade since I was posting arguments online.

And I, being the young punk I was, sucked at it then too

Kudos to both of you .. spot on

[Revan]

If we look at the question another way, we could ask "Do intentions matter more than cats?"









I'm glad I'm involved in these profound discussions.

[Skyweir]

Hahaha .. Revan you should visit Mallorys more often Revan .. we can always use more left field thinkers

[Avatar]

Cut me some slack its been a full decade since I was posting arguments online.

Excuses...

--A

[Vraith]

Vraith, the way I'm reading your comments, it sure sounds like you're advocating for the existence of hard and fast, universally, "good" or, "bad" motivations or acts. Sort of like a secular set of Commandments. I'm guessing that you don't intend that.

So how do you define a good or bad intention?

Heh...on the first, I suspect you're more than guessing, cuz I suspect you've read enough of my anti-absolutist thought all over the place at least subconsciously intuit my position.

On the second...obvious "Well DUH"...if I could do that rigorously and definitively, I'd have written a famous book/paper and have rock-star status---at least among the cohort of people who give a damn about this and perhaps beyond.
But other than that absurdity...I've been thinking how to make what I think clear without pages and pages and still address the points, yet not be splattered by of "but..what about?" and willful [or other] reinterpretation waste-products..like
[[deleted too-tankish shit about Z' annoying/misreading me probably on purpose]]

The best I can do meeting both short and not TOO much shaped like a "here's my fallacy bullet, what you say about that, Libtard?" target:
No act is purely, in all contexts, "good" or "bad."
No outcome is naturally [and just as important PREDICTABLY] either, either.
[[[outcomes aren't even predictable AT ALL, in many cases, let alone predictably good or bad]]]]
Intentions are actually BETTER in weighing those things when judging value/moral valence. But much harder to know/show/prove.
But if I was forced to differentiate good from bad intentions [which I and everyone often are, and is goddamn hard, which is why a significant portion of people/systems prefer to ignore it for simplicity EVEN THOUGH ignoring it is an automatic guarantee of error]---I would START from the position that account for the welfare of those harmed as equal status of those helped.
Like the old "give fish/teach fishing." Really, wise-man? There are half a dozen unknowns and falsehoods in your "wisdom." Your intentions are BAD because you don't know SHiT about hunger, education, rivers, fish, economics, power, poverty, etc.
But you [royal "you" of course] think they're good because.....[[[a ton of things arise and are debatable, but this ain't the tank]]].
There's more..that's just the start, but hopefully enough [yea, right.]

[Skyweir]

Yep ok .. but definitely yes need more

Shall wait and to do the tankish thing lol