Do intentions matter more than acts?

[Fist and Faith]

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.

Your intentions are good. Someone has no means of feeding himself, and you give him a means. Not educating yourself in a dozen fields of study before teaching him how to fish does not change your intentions from good to bad. Just as your intentions are not bad when you help an old lady cross the street because you don't know why she's on the curb. What if she's trying to commit suicide, and you've just taken self-determination away from her? What if she just lifted some guy's wallet, and she's trying to get as far from him as she can before he notices? All nonsense. You're trying to help someone. That's your intent. People help each other all the time. If nobody helped anybody without first asking a dozen people for their opinions, hoping other points of view will reveal all possible areas of possible danger, then consulting experts in whatever fields were considered likely to be impacted, nobody would do anything for anyone. That would be bad.

As far as the fish goes, I'll teach him how to fish even if I DO know all the things you think should be known before taking that kind of action, and even if I know it WILL be a problem. Because letting him starve is an immediate bad. The negative consequences that come from teaching him how to fish (depletion of the fish population?) are not immediate, and can be addressed before things go belly up (<- fish joke).

And if the way I try to help someone feed himself is by teaching him how to fish, it's likely I do know a bit about the impact of fishing. I'm probably a fisherman. Not like I work at a grocery story, and figure the way to help him is to teach him to fish. I'd be helping him try to get a job at a grocery store.

If I tried to help him by showing him how to break into someone's house and steal their money and food, my intentions would be bad.

[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?

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.]

It shouldn't surprise you that I reject nearly everything you've typed.

No one forces you to determine intent. You choose to do that. Why? Most people couldn't care any less why someone does something good or nice. It seems that you're just hell-bent on judging people, and I guess I just don't see the point. Again, I completely agree that intent can be an aggravating/mitigating circumstance in a bad act, but if something's good, who cares?

And your complete disconnect on the fish story is telling. You're saying that it's better to make someone dependent rather than teaching them to be independent.

[Vraith]

It shouldn't surprise you that I reject nearly everything you've typed.

It seems that you're just hell-bent on judging people,


You're saying that it's better to make someone dependent rather than teaching them to be independent.

On the first...true, I'm not surprised.

On the second, that's not my point/attitude/"intent" at all.
I'm saying intent matters because it is always data/information, it is force/energy causally connected to both act and outcome and is necessary for accurate knowledge/interpretation OF the acts and outcomes. It is one of the necessary foundations/inputs for knowing, for making meaning.

On the last, again, not my intention or meaning. I'm saying that aphorism is quite broadly applied when it should be narrowly applied. It is perfectly reasonable and likely effective IF and ONLY if the cause of fishlessness is a lack of fishing knowledge.
But I think the world shows that that is not the only---and maybe not even main---cause of fishlessness, so the solution is actually an irrelevancy.
Even when it's the right description and solution, it's too simplified to work alone.
For instance, it's often pointed out that the tech/knowledge of industrialization revolutionized employment---got rid of many traditional jobs/careers but made up for it with many more new ones.
What is left out is that, depending on whose numbers you believe, it took AT LEAST an entire generation to do so, [some say 3 generations] That huge gap between need and solution is very large problem...a lot of fishless people in need of very many fish for a very long time before they're fisherfolk. [[the current revolution is likely to be far larger...more people, longer time, much greater level jump in knowledge requirements]].
[[and that's accepting that the culture of dependence is a real thing...while more and more research is showing that it isn't]].

[Cail]

It shouldn't surprise you that I reject nearly everything you've typed.

It seems that you're just hell-bent on judging people,


You're saying that it's better to make someone dependent rather than teaching them to be independent.

On the first...true, I'm not surprised.

On the second, that's not my point/attitude/"intent" at all.
I'm saying intent matters because it is always data/information, it is force/energy causally connected to both act and outcome and is necessary for accurate knowledge/interpretation OF the acts and outcomes. It is one of the necessary foundations/inputs for knowing, for making meaning.

Again, I disagree. Intent has zero effect on outcome.

I jump in a river to save a drowning child and return her to her parents. It makes no difference whether or not I did it out of the goodness of my heart, or if I did it because you were holding a gun to my head. The outcome is the same for the child. The meaning, the force, the energy, and the knowing are immaterial. Unless, that is, you put more emphasis on judging than results.

On the last, again, not my intention or meaning. I'm saying that aphorism is quite broadly applied when it should be narrowly applied. It is perfectly reasonable and likely effective IF and ONLY if the cause of fishlessness is a lack of fishing knowledge.
But I think the world shows that that is not the only---and maybe not even main---cause of fishlessness, so the solution is actually an irrelevancy.
Even when it's the right description and solution, it's too simplified to work alone.

Again, you're overcomplicating the aphorism, which is based entirely on whether or not the person knows how to fish.

[Fist and Faith]

Unless, that is, you put more emphasis on judging than results.

And the judgement is always negative. There seems to be no point in any of this, V, because you have found reason to judge every scenario you or any of us have brought up badly. When you need to examine so many things that went into the decision to act, and assume there must be something bad behind anything that seems good. Heck, we could suggest the possibility that a hypothetically perfectly good person is only so because he didn't want to be like his evil parents, so the motivation ultimately comes from evil.

And if all possible future events that were influenced by the act in question must be weighed into the decision, there will certainly be bad things somewhere along the line.

In short, there has never been a good act in the history of life.

Ya gotta lighten up! There is also love in the world.

[Vraith]

Again, you're overcomplicating the aphorism,

which is based entirely on whether or not the person knows how to fish.

Second thing first---the aphorism is BASED on that, but like all aphorisms and similar things it is MEANT, it is INTENDED, to mean more than that. And I say that it is only semi-applicable in the limited/literal sense, and demonstrably, causally its own opposite in the extended sense---BELIEVING the broader sense creates simplistic attitudes that cause more harm than the "wisdom" solves....
...
But that's not the important thing for this post..that would be:

On the first---I would say, being as uncomplicated and straightforward and clear as I know how to be:
Something north of half---but probably less than 90%---of difficulties I have with discussions/issues is in PART [not wholly, there are other things too, but part] due to that.
People say I'm over-complicating things [when they're being nice, more negative words implying same when they're not].
But I honestly, 100%, to the root of my brain/identity, think aphorisms, proverbs, cliches, adages, Aesop's damn morals, ALL of it---the belief in or trust in that shit fucks the world up. The world IS complicated---worse, it is complex. Simplifying it is horrible.
You [royal] say "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth." I say ARE YOU FUCKING crazy, lazy, too innocent, soothing a child, or trying to fool someone?
When people say [probably posted this somewhere before] it's bad that common sense isn't common...my visceral and instant reaction is NO. The problem is it IS common, and it is wrong as often as right [at least]. It's infectious and anti-survival. I can be gotten away with in small-ish, local, roughly stable groups/areas. But species suicide on the large/long scale.

[Cail]

Vraith, you're introducing things that aren't there in the plain text. Fist is right, you're just looking for negatives. Sometimes a good thing is just a good thing.

[Skyweir]

I am being brutally honest right now, not nice at all .. V... as Ive mentioned before .... there are times that I truly could bask in the light of your intellect ... youve a well established standard of deep, considered and critical thinking. I genuinely love reading your thoughts. I actually find you a phenomenally fascinating thinker .. and am learning a lot from reading what you write ... mmm ... but this thread .. and on this issue ... not so much .

Are your posts always clear and articulate.. tbh no lol you demonstrate a propensity to cover all bases. Its actually quite admirable .... and often makes me smile. Its your style .. and also I dont give a fuck about your swearing for obvious reasons ...

Here, I am struggling to see your point .. and I do genuinely want to. With the industrial revolution example .. I can appreciate kinda what you mean .. it was an ACT .. arguably for the greater good .. but was the cause of suffering, joblessness, poverty and no doubt deaths .. as the Poor Houses could not help all through that period... and they werent great places to end up. And back then charity wasnt all that charitable.

So on the face of it .. an ACT which would have comprised thousands of ACTS by hundreds of different ACTORS .. was marketed or promoted as a GOOD .. but did in fact result in not so good things.

Its not exactly a perfect parallel but few things are Ill give you that

But the fish and teaching a man to fish .. mmm .. I agree with Cail it seems on the face of it again to be a conflict between an ACT .. giving a fish ... resulting in filling a tummy with the EFFECT being dependence. Or teaching a hungry man to catch fish so that he can feed himself forever and a day .. the EFFECT differently resulting in independence.

The latter example accords with a higher efficiency and more effective service, than the first.... does it not .

The handout scenario aligns better with your criticism of motives .. doesnt it ... so if that is your meaning I 100 percent agree... and see where youre coming from.

But in general I think its difficult to apply your general rationale re motivation.. to things like Cail saving your life .. your life continues which is the BENEFIT .. regardless of his motivation or the cost of his effort.

On the balance then .. in a cost benefit analysis .. the benefit of your life outweighs the cost of his effort. The end.

Im not at all religious .. I see that some ACTS churches, religious institutions ideologists undertake are not always undertaken for the sake of individual or even the community .. sometimes charitable service serves no one .. it may have been a stupid fucked up initiative to begin with .. but humans can surprise you. And just do something nice because they really want to help someone.

Yes I think you completely get that .. that sometimes people just do nice things.

Ulterior motives may sour a good act imo but do not undo the good thats done.

And its frustrating the fuck out of me watching this play out the way it is .. cos your digging in .. with no sign of moving forward lol
Sometimes you just have to say awww fuck ... I fucked yo .. in this one .. And youre entitled to a fuck up once in your lifetime.. kinda shows your just human after all ... as opposed to the superior alien intelligence most of us believe you are

[Vraith]

I wrote a really long detailed post, it won't work, getting 3 different kinds of errors [404, 406, and something else] and tried redoing several times from scratch.

Here are the high points:
Fist you are nuts, I'm so damn light it's practically unbearable.
At least 3/4 of my posts have at least a touch of humour...the problem might be that a slew of folk find my humour on a continuum between Stupid and Incomprehensible, with funny NOT on the scale.

Sky, I'm not digging in, I'm trying to excavate examples that work for people.

The dinosaurs died.
If you don't account for gravity, you will never really understand why they died and we aren't all highly evolved saurians...or many other things in the universe.
In your account there's no knowing the reason the asteroid didn't touch the earth with totally bearable lightness.

IF people can have thoughts/choices, free will, form intentions, then you cannot understand the behaviors/thoughts/choices we label human WITHOUT grappling with intentions. They are a causal force, that CREATES the acts and outcomes.

If we want to create MORE good acts, MORE good outcomes...and who doesn't?...the absolute best way to do so is to figure out how to create more good intentions.
Concepts of good intentions that rely on mythical things will always end up bad in the long run...and often in the short run.
[[[numerous examples/illustrations were included, but I'm too done with this to recreate it all]]].

The world is a bit too crowded with people who will justify actions of gangs, cults, gov'ts, etc...because they provide some good outcomes...and ignore their bad intentions and bad outcomes for OTHER people. Al Capone had a shitload of public support, apparently [that may be mythical, never actually checked].

[Skyweir]

And hes back

Im kinda disappointed that we cant read your full response .. if it ever happens again copy and paste it into your notes or doc and try posting another time.

I had lots of problems trying to post in the Tank today and it was very frustrating lol .. I used the diacritics remover that usually works but not today for some reason.

[Rawedge Rim]

Steven King short story:"The End of the Whole Mess "

Man finds a chemical that reduces aggression, introduces it into the water supply world wide, believing that he would end war and crime, and for a short period of time it did, making the world a better place. That was his intention

Resulting act was that everyone contracted dementia and died shortly thereafter.

So even though the intention was good and benevolent, was the result evil/bad?

Of course it was.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

[&#133;]

I had lots of problems trying to post in the Tank today and it was very frustrating lol .. I used the diacritics remover that usually works but not today for some reason.

Had that happen to me once. Culprit? An invisible character. Diacritics wouldn't remove it.

I had to excise one paragraph of de-diacriticized text at a time and, then, try to post it in order to find the offending paragraph. Then, one sentence at a time in order to find the offending sentence. Then, one sentence fragment at a time &#133; yada yada.

Thusly, I cornered and exterminated the evil critter.

There might well be a tool to expedite this process, but dunno what it may be.

[Skyweir]

WOW .. what a process lol

Ill give that a crack if it happens again Wos
cheers

[Vraith]

So even though the intention was good and benevolent, was the result evil/bad?

People keep acting like I don't get the point. But I do. I disagree with it, is all..

People also seem to think stories like that King one [[didn't the guy make a wasp a pet and put it on a string/leash? That was funny...I think it's in that story] are making a point about intentions.
But they aren't about intentions.
They're about the limits/failure of knowledge/facts.

It's also true, in my not very humble opinion that the story, the meaning, every important thing, is different if the guy makes everyone an idiot on purpose. If THAT is his intention.

[Skyweir]

So according to RR ... good intentions exist despite the result or effect of that intention.

I think I agree in part ..

1. ok a persons intent can be well meaning
2. The result of a well intentioned act can be disastrous, negative and or harmful

Does the outcome invalidate the well meaning intent

In truth it has to ... but can only be determined on a case by case basis.

To my mind .. as flawed as it is .. that is, my mind ... ... this may be Vs point. Forgive me for referring to you in the 3rd person

Im not familiar with the story you both refer to .. so I could be way out on a limb here ..

V argues that story is not about intent .. but is about having knowledge sufficient to understand limitations and reasoned expectations

Or just tell me to fuck off
LOL

[Rawedge Rim]

So according to RR ... good intentions exist despite the result or effect of that intention.

I think I agree in part ..

1. ok a persons intent can be well meaning
2. The result of a well intentioned act can be disastrous, negative and or harmful

Does the outcome invalidate the well meaning intent

In truth it has to ... but can only be determined on a case by case basis.

To my mind .. as flawed as it is .. that is, my mind ... ... this may be Vs point. Forgive me for referring to you in the 3rd person

Im not familiar with the story you both refer to .. so I could be way out on a limb here ..

V argues that story is not about intent .. but is about having knowledge sufficient to understand limitations and reasoned expectations

Or just tell me to fuck off
LOL

Short answer, yes and no. Frankly the end result is more important generally than the intention.

[Vraith]

Frankly the end result is more important generally than the intention.

Generally...weightier, probably. Not even I'm saying anything else...I'm saying they aren't IRRELEVANT, ever, and the world is way undervaluing almost constantly lately.

But you're particular, too...and don't believe what you said. Or you'd be anti-religion top to bottom, all religions.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

People ask "Which matters more?" without asking "Matters to whom?"

I'm sure that it prolly matters more to the guy that ran me over that he didn't intend to run me over.

But I bet it matters more to me that I actually got ran over.

And if one means "Matters more in the grand scheme", one still has to ask, "Matters to whom?"

To a god? To an Übermensch? A Big Brother? A world-court?

Whom?

[Linna Heartbooger]

...And if one means "Matters more in the grand scheme", one still has to ask, "Matters to whom?"

To a god? To an Ubermensch? A Big Brother? A world-court?

Whom?

ooh, now I want back in on this discussion.
Well, certainly I would say "to God," but...
...if someone doesn't fully believe in God, believing in an objective standard of good is a good thing, right?
I mean, some people would say, "no, I don't believe in your God, but of COURSE I see there is an objective reality, there are things that are objectively true... some choices are objectively better than others."

I'd like there to be a stop-gap solution that -helps- with grappling with these ethical questions, because I remember myself... there was a time when I hadn't really looked very much in the direction of "God existing" being a possibility, but the evidence for some choices being better than other choices... oh, man, that was a big deal.
(stopgap solution... or a gateway drug to making friends with Truth...)

The other three possibilities listed (an Ubermensch, a Big Brother, a world-court?) would be just a bunch of blind knuckleheads....

On the other hand, I've thought about another possible answer.
What if that person's intention being good matters to everyone he or she will ever interact with in his/her life?
The sort of ancient idea of ones character being the driving force in his or her life.
I mean, with the "running you over" example, if someone intentionally ran you over, that would be really, really cold.
A hard heart like that is gonna wreck anyone and anything in its path that lets it unless some drastic change comes.
A hard heart like that is deceived and will seek justification.

If someone ran you over because he/she didn't see the point in being more careful, that is obviously still quite serious. ("Yer not kiddin'!" says Wosbald as he types from his hospital bed!)
BUT there are many gradations of "careless" that still describe a person willing to learn.
To learn reality, to learn what to expect from people, and to learn that no, really, sometimes ya just need a designated driver.

That said, the ethic that we seek in these things should be way stronger than "I wasn't trying to hurt someone [at least when it was convenient for me]."


Also, apologies for not responding to questions that were earlier asked of me... I know that is kinda discourteous in a debate - both to my interlocutor(s) and kinda to other participants.

[Skyweir]

Thats a very interesting point .. Wos and Linna.

I guess when looking at the big picture .. perhaps philosophically speaking ... intent and or motivation and acts .. have been relegated to a broad canvass .. so to whom .. is arguably a narrow more localised perspective. That adds value ... acknowledging ... that point, from that perspective.

Looking down or out at the issue of intent and acts .. arent we looking at these elements against an objective standard Though no one has yet agreed or even developed either a standard or a methodology for assessing these elements.

If I say for example .. I want to loose weight but eat poorly, am not physically active and do nothing to change my behaviour ... is my intention really to lose weight at all

I can want to lose weight with great earnestness .. but in reality it means nothing to me personally or anyone else either. The problem with intent .. is that unless it is expressed we have no way of determining its value. OTOH perhaps certain actions are inherently good

Now I may have wandered off my own track here .. so allow me to recoup.

This is true in law .. most often a persons intent can only be demonstrated through their actions, their words, their expressions of intent.

But intent is subjective .. and to appreciate its value it must be weighed against an objective standard .. perhaps reasonableness. What is reasonable Well lucky for us .. the courts have had several 100 years to come up with tests .. but they remain challengable ... as they are generally measured against community, societal standards .. which are not static, but constantly. But in dealing with humans all assessments need to be assessed on a case by case basis.

I propose removing deities from the scenario ... as how can we know the intent of a deity or deities that not all accept ... while theoretically fixed its a bit difficult ... as individual interpretations as well as institutional interpretations differ quite vastly. Adding greater subjectivity and increased uncertainty to the assessment.

So to whom .. yes to the actor and the acted upon. And damn I have to go ......