Do intentions matter more than acts?

[Vraith]

Sounds to me, from your post, that short of a deity personally appearing and immediately performing miracles, you are hardwired into disbelieving in the efficaciousness of faith based organizations. Sorta damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Precisely untrue.
Faith-based orgs can and have been and probably will be efficacious as fuck. But they are AT LEAST as efficacious for evil as for good, for harm as help, for death as life.
Because, among OTHER things, the faithful path is exclusive, and the god-object is authoritarian and not real/grounded. If he/she/it IS real, not authoritarian, he/she/it SHOULD do what you say, if for no other reason than to STOP the goddamn evil.
Efficacious lies and illusions exist.
Efficacious facts and reality are better. In every possible way.

The problem that Av doesn't seem to recognize in that little blurb is that the causal belief of most good religiously motivated acts is IDENTICAL to the belief that causes the ugly ones. And when it isn't, it's hypocrisy.
Mother T thought suffering was great for poor Indian souls---but she spent a shitload to avoid suffering to fix her own soul. OTHER PEOPLE's money, money MEANT for the babes.

[Avatar]

The problem that Av doesn't seem to recognize in that little blurb is that the causal belief of most good religiously motivated acts is IDENTICAL to the belief that causes the ugly ones. And when it isn't, it's hypocrisy.

No, I just don't think it matters. I generally care less about your motivation than about the outcome of your actions.

My point is that there are good religiously motivated acts.

That doesn't negate the bad ones, or mean that there aren't bad ones. But surely the fact that there are bad ones doesn't negate the good ones either?

--A

[Skyweir]

I know exactly what V's about .. and I agree.

But I see that even though V .. you see the flaws in the structural premise of religion, being faith and guilt based actually to a great degree, its not really truly relevant to the achievement of the positive outcome ... regardless of an individuals motivation, whether it be faith motivated ... or just good hearted humans achieving good things .. motivated.

Goodness, positive change, is the outcome .. ethical behaviour is not the sole dominion of the religious.

And of course there is no shortage of despicable humans among the religious or among sectarian spheres.

As there is no shortage of ethical humans that are committed to religion .. the same is equally true in sectarian spheres. LOL _ ... sorry a little tired and not sure how to effectively describe non believers. _

I agree the fundamental basis of religion is et upon flawed premises, but thats my personal position. And it has taken me a long time to get here.

Probably not terribly clear right now .. didnt sleep at all last night

[Vraith]

No, I just don't think it matters. I generally care less about your motivation than about the outcome of your actions.

--A

And I think a horrendous number of people in the world think that.
It's a terrible thing.
Outcomes are all, to some extent, unpredictable.
The only way to restrict/limit that unpredictability is better information, not better myths/god-objects.
The only mitigation [or credit] for outcomes is intentions/motivations
In fact, there is almost NO perspective/sense/overview from which you can even MAKE a judgement of an outcome WITHOUT accounting for and weighing intentions. [[well, you CAN---it will just be wholly and irrevocably irrational.]]

[SoulBiter]

I agree Sky.

What you describe is the human condition. We, as a people, have the threads of good and evil in all of us. So any organization has the capacity for good, and indeed the capacity for evil. Religion has done some evil things. Religion has done some good things. I can make the same claim about any secular group. Lets say the US military for instance. They do alot of good. But sometimes their members are employed in a way that the end result is evil. Does that make the US Military inherently evil? No, of course not.

The good I do, even though I'm driven by my belief in a God that directs me to do good things, is still a good thing. I don't know how others are directed by their Church. For mine, we do good for the sake of God, but we don't tie that good thing to "but I need to see you in Church on Sunday". We want our good deeds to speak for themselves and that people want to see what we are about because of the good deeds we do. Not because its linked to any aid they are receiving.

One of our tenants is "If our Church disappeared from (insert place here), we would be missed (they would feel the vacuum of the good work no longer being done) by the community"

[Fist and Faith]

Outcomes are all, to some extent, unpredictable.

We're not talking about trying to predict what someone will do, based on what we know of their beliefs. We're talking about looking at what someone did. It doesn't matter if the person feeding the homeless is an atheist or a devout Catholic of fifty years. They fed the homeless. That's a good thing. That's what matters.

[Skyweir]

Agreed Fisty. The full belly is the outcome. How it was filled is less relevant. The critical import of this is that the hungry do not starve.

SB I like and respect your approach to public service and doing good. I think that its a good sign that there are still humanitarian humans in the world who care about less fortunate humans.

I think its good that we highly regard great works of kindness and goodness achieved.

As far as religions, good works done are great. Some from my experience alone do utilise service as part of a conversion agenda. Im heartened SB that is not your experience. Good simply for the sake of good is truly a joyous thing.

I do not believe in the existence of gods, the supernatural .. but there are things I cannog logically explain .. and do not know very many things in this regard.

It saddens me tbh that there are enterprising charlatans in this world that use religion as a money making venture to prey on and play to, vulnerable humans. Thats a despicable state of affairs.

Billy Graham is noted for doing great good. I admire great good. He is also known for some great wisdom.

When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost.

God has given us two hands, one to receive with and the other to give with.

For me personally I regard these as positive messaging. Despite not believing in from my perspective, the associated mythology.

Someone mentioned that Graham was only worth a mere $25 Mill. The Billy Graham Evangelical Association is worth in excess of $375m and 85% of that is financial contributions. Of course Graham had rights of use of any of the properties owned by his association. So modest .. perhaps. Good arguably .. he made a sizeable income from his efforts. I believe he acquired a Tele audience well in excess of 2.2 billion. Which is impressive.

[Avatar]

Outcomes are all, to some extent, unpredictable.

We're not talking about trying to predict what someone will do, based on what we know of their beliefs. We're talking about looking at what someone did. It doesn't matter if the person feeding the homeless is an atheist or a devout Catholic of fifty years. They fed the homeless. That's a good thing. That's what matters.

Especially to the homeless who got fed.

Although intent can ameliorate our judgement, it is the result that informs it.

--A

[Vraith]

The critical import of this is that the hungry do not starve.

Really? That's because you have a feeling that starvation is bad...mmm-kay? And intend/are motivated to do something about it.
Now---
If the "REASON" you think you should feed the hungry is that some holy book or person says you should....well you're a deficient human being. And that deficiency sure as hell matters even if the import is hidden/ameliorated by the providing of a meal.

Also---history is chock full of master's keeping their slaves' bellies full.

Also---The world right now if fairly crowded with MOSTLY men [but some women] armed and fighting cuz the gov't/rebel forces keep their bellies full. [[a fair number of those folk are 8, 10, 12 years old]].

Outcomes are contextual. They are not independent. The weight of each varies for particular cases...but if you ignore intentions/motivations, you're ignoring more than half of the facts of life, and probably making meaning impossible.

[Fist and Faith]

The critical import of this is that the hungry do not starve.

Really? That's because you have a feeling that starvation is bad...mmm-kay? And intend/are motivated to do something about it.
Now---
If the "REASON" you think you should feed the hungry is that some holy book or person says you should....well you're a deficient human being. And that deficiency sure as hell matters even if the import is hidden/ameliorated by the providing of a meal.

No it doesn't. The act is good, regardless of the fact that the person would not have done it without some holy book or person telling them to.

Also---history is chock full of master's keeping their slaves' bellies full.

Also---The world right now if fairly crowded with MOSTLY men [but some women] armed and fighting cuz the gov't/rebel forces keep their bellies full. [[a fair number of those folk are 8, 10, 12 years old]]

Outcomes are contextual. They are not independent. The weight of each varies for particular cases...but if you ignore intentions/motivations, you're ignoring more than half of the facts of life, and probably making meaning impossible.

Indeed, there are many scenarios where the motivation someone had when they fed someone else was negative. I suppose we could argue that it's less evil to feed your slaves than to starve them, but that argument isn't necessary. There are also times when someone fed someone else under circumstances that even you, no matter how much you want to, could not twist into acts of evil, and the motivation is solely because some holy book or person told them to. It's still a good act, and it happened because of religion.

[Rawedge Rim]

The critical import of this is that the hungry do not starve.

Outcomes are contextual. They are not independent. The weight of each varies for particular cases...but if you ignore intentions/motivations, you're ignoring more than half of the facts of life, and probably making meaning impossible.

Gonna have to raise the BS flag on that statement. Intentions are great, unless the results are evil.

One has the intention of improving the human race; sounds noble; but if the result is the death of millions to make it happen, then was it a good deed or an evil deed?

[Cail]

The critical import of this is that the hungry do not starve.

Outcomes are contextual. They are not independent. The weight of each varies for particular cases...but if you ignore intentions/motivations, you're ignoring more than half of the facts of life, and probably making meaning impossible.

Gonna have to raise the BS flag on that statement. Intentions are great, unless the results are evil.

One has the intention of improving the human race; sounds noble; but if the result is the death of millions to make it happen, then was it a good deed or an evil deed?

Exactly. The Amnion had great intentions.

When it comes to good deeds, intent doesn't matter (assuming the behavior is consensual).

[Zarathustra]

It doesn't matter if the person feeding the homeless is an atheist or a devout Catholic of fifty years. They fed the homeless. That's a good thing. That's what matters.

... not if feeding the homeless creates more homeless.

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

[Fist and Faith]

That's not what's going on. You're just adding a negative event after the positive event. We can do that with any conceivable scenario, and turn any good into bad or bad into good.

It does apply to Vraith, however. No act can be considered good or bad until we know what motivated the person to do it. I don't mean that in the sense of saving a drowning child ... because I'm a cannibal and the kid looks delicious. Vraith says that saving the child - and that's the end of the story - can only be judged good or bad after knowing why I bothered. Yes, Vraith and I disagree on what it means, and what it requires, to be good. To say it wasn't a good act because I did it for this or that reason, and to not be able to ever make a judgement if you never learn anything about me or my motivations...? If someone saves your drowning child, say "THANK YOU!!!!" Don't tell him he didn't do anything good because he only did it because of his religious beliefs.

[Skyweir]

V ... and thats your take away

I gotta say mate .. I do highly regard your input on almost every thread Ive read that youve posted on, but on this topic your loathing of the god mythology is affecting your well established ability to be logical and reasonable.

Whats more important than performing a good

Whether you like it or not, a Christian that performs public service, performs public service.

An atheist that performs public service, performs public service.

Whether youre motivated by no more than a sectarian desire to contribute to your societies wellbeing .. its a public service.

And as a matter of fact many governments throughout history relied on public services performed by churches, to meet the needs of the poor. Thats one of the reasons churches are granted tax exemptions in many western nations.

Churches could do a lot more than they do today though imo. Some do more than others that is true. But the more governments take the lead on social welfare, churches are less relied upon to fill that gap.

Despite being an atheist I cant deny that many churches still engage in public services and do good. And I already covered off on the exceptions to this.

Linna I will track down that interview for you And I dont think youre attacking me. I doubt I could ever think I would ever have cause to think ill of you.

[Vraith]

I do highly regard your input on almost every thread Ive read that youve posted on


, but on this topic your loathing of the god mythology is affecting your well established ability to be logical and reasonable.

On the first...thank you for that. Sincerely.

On the second, I don't think so. For one thing, I don't ONLY loathe the god mythology. Nor am I sure loathing really describes my attitude. I have a similar view on pretty much all pure ideological frames. It's not secret that I have quite a few positions that fall in an area labelled "left." But there are people/structures on "my" side that I "loathe" in the same way, for the same reasons.

But, to improvise somewhat on the path of the first::::
Analogic/metaphorical explication:
In every case, you have at least 4 parts. The intention, the act, the result yielding effect/meaning/knowledge.
A particle with mass, spin, charge, yielding effect/meaning/knowledge
Distinct properties. But not disconnected, not independent.
The intention, act, and outcome MUST be informed by reality, facts...charge, spin, mass MUST have some correspondence with what "is."
Your theory on the physics MUST account for all those things, they ALL contribute to/participate in the knowledge, the meaning. If you ignore the spin, your judgement/conclusions will be strictly limited AT BEST. More likely, just wrong in general.
If your theory is a myth---like Druidry, Efficient Markets, The Communist Manifesto---you have many...some large, some small, some local some far-reaching, and...if you refuse to alter your myth...insoluble, irreparable problems.
[[heh...note the parable there...I think that's funny.

[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?

[Fist and Faith]

That's good in theory, V, but reality says otherwise. Yes, given enough time and incidents, it may be that differences will be found between people who act from different theories. But not every moment for every incident. In particular cases, the act and result are identical and indistinguishable. Not knowing what theory two people are acting from, you would have no way of knowing what theory they hold to, or that they do not hold to the same theory.

I think I also disagree with your first part: the intention. Say an atheist and a Christian both intend to feed a homeless person, or save a drowning child, then act to do so. There is something prior to the intention that, despite being different between the two, leads to the same intention.

[Vraith]

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.

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]].

[Fist and Faith]

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?

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]].

I'm gonna have to read this again later. My head's spinning.