Does Intention Matter?

[Revan]

Or is only the result that matters?

Permit me to explain; I often see news reports of famous people giving money to charity; and often hear people say something like "Oh, they're only doing it to make themselves seem good, not because they care."

And that raises a big question for me, which is; does it matter whether they are doing it for the right or wrong reasons, so long as it gets done?

And I am not just speaking of giving money to charities or things of that sort; I'm speaking of every day life. Intention and what happens aren't always the same...

Manslaughter and Murder; two entirely different things in conception; and two exactly the same in result. So intention does matter to the law. But what I'm saying is; is there really any difference between the two? I mean the death still happened, regardless of what the intentions of the killer was.

Both good and bad get done everyday, and people often doubt the intentions of those that do these acts, but does it matter? the act (good or bad) is done; so what do the reasons behind it matter?

[Loredoctor]

I'll be brief: the act that matters. As long as nothing bad comes of it, who cares if someone is selfish doing it? Someone of something received help.

[Revan]

Ah, but I'm not just talking on kind acts, manslaughter and murder; f only the act matter, what are you going to try someone for?

[Loredoctor]

I'm speaking of good acts.

[Revan]

Ah, but good and bad are subjective. What is good is one persons eyes is evil in anothers...

Take heighted security, where our phone lines and computers can be tapped into; some few this as a good safety measure, and doing good for everyone... a good act; some view it as evil, taking away certain freedoms we hold precious.

[Loredoctor]

Ah, but good and bad are subjective. What is good is one persons eyes is evil in anothers...

Oh man, this thread is going to derail fast! I'm out of here!

[Avatar]

Always nice to see you starting a new topic in the Close Darth, it's been a long time.

Forget the good and bad, for a moment...the question itself is fairly simple. (And I recommend that everybody read the article that TarasWizard linked to in the "Ender's Game" thread in Gen Sci Fi, because this is exactly what it's about: Intent.

On the one hand, I'm in favour of an intent-based morality. Afterall, who hasn't done or said something with the best intentions, only to have it go horribly wrong in terms of unforeseen consequences, or whatever?

If you kill somebody without knowing you did, or without meaning to, are you equally guilty? Perhaps. but are you equally "evil"? I'm not so sure.

On the other hand, it is the act that counts, at least as far as the victim/beneficiary counts, so LoreMaster has a point too.

--A

[wayfriend]

Let me very quickly point out that there are two questions here, not one.

First, there is the question of, whether the act was a good act. This would be considering how it relates to the world and the human condition. Intention is of no consequence.

Second, there is the question of, whether the person is a better person for performing the act. This would be considering how it relates to one person's morality, ethics, and character. And that's where intention is of consequence.

Good deeds can arise from bad intentions; bad deeds from good.

Unfortunately, just when you split this things apart nicely, you can start to talk about law and punishment and justice. Then they get blurred back together again. Because the legal standing of an act, and the punitive reward for it, considers both factors: the act and the intention.

This doesn't mean that they aren't seperate things; only that they are two considerations leading to one decision, a decision which has nothing to do in the end with good or bad - the decision has to do with law and justice.

[Avatar]

Interesting point WayFriend.

What about when you have a good act, with bad intentions, or vice versa? Does intent not matter?

I'm not sure that we're talking about whether or not something was a good act or not though. As I see the question, it's more along the lines of regardless of whether or not the act (or the result) is good or bad, does what you intended by that act mitigate or exacerbate the outcome.

I dunno...as I said before, I'm uncertain. There is something to be said for both results based consideration, and intent based consideration.

In addition, while I recognise that the law often differentiates between intent and result, I'm not sure that Darth meant it in terms of law. I took it as a question in terms of "morality" myself.

In other words, are you less evil if you didn't intend the evil consequence?

--A

[The Somberlain]

I'd have to go with intent all the way. That is... the intent is what fundamentally matters. If I were hypothetically able to take one action of one person at random every day, knowing every detail about itm and judge it - I would base my conclusion on their intention.

Take the charity. Is the celebrity donating to Medicins Sans Frontieres purely to make themselves look good a better person for having done that? I don't think so. If their agent has rung them up and said "You know, you're not too popular at the moment. I suggest giving a couple of million to charity", then the celebrity does not go up in my estimation.

Take the manslaughter. If your defendant's killed someone, and definitely did not mean to do so, I couldn't consider them to be a murderer. A murderer is a person who decides to kill someone else, and then does so. It could be plotted, it could be in the heat of the moment, but their intention there and then was to cause death. As I've said elsewhere, I'm firmly of the opinion that the justice system should try to address the psychology of the murderer. I think everyone has the potential capacity, at birth, to be a killer, or not. Getting derailed here, so I'll try to keep it short - it'll be relevant in a minute - I'm not shifting the responsibility to society, or others, and saying that it isn't their fault... because they've almost definitely made some choices along the way that resulted in the situation. But the fact that they were forced to make the choice, is probably not their fault.

So I definitely differentiate between murder and manslaughter. The murderer needs to be locked up until (s)he is deemed socially normal, or dead. Because (s)he is dangerous. The manslaughterer is not. Of course each case is different, and on the whole, someone who kills without intending to, probably didn't have anything resembling what we'd describe as good intentions... so that's to be judged on its own.

So.
The intention behind the act is what defines the nature of the person committing the act. If we're judging that person, you have to look at what the were thinking... that seems only logical.

But the outcome of the act can't be ignored, because it happened. And it may be good, or bad. It may correspond to their intentions or it may go against the intentions. It may - as in the case of the charity-donator here - have nothing directly to do with their intentions whatsoever.

So you, the observer, can praise or lament the act depending on what the consequence was. If a death happens accidentally, it is perfectly natural to say, "Oh, god, why? WHY did it happen? This is tragic". Because it is. But I don't believe you can conclude anything about the nature of the person from that.
Similarly, you can say about the charity situation - "Well, that's good. It is a good action, because the money's going to a worthy cause". But that says nothing about the celebrity. If they have indeed donated becaue they're selfish and vain, they are... well, whatever you deem selfishness and vanity to be.


Anyway, my lunch break's over now.

[wayfriend]

Duck and weave: All I can say is, outside of court, who are we to judge someone's intentions? How, practically, can one do so? And of what practical benefit is it to do so?

Unfortunately, I'm not a believer in the the Big Slate, the Cosmic Abacus, the Heavenly Blackener/Whitener of Souls, or any other form of moral metric.

Personally, I try to live by judge not. Everyone forms opinions of people, but I try to be above average in seperating opinions from facts before I execute any personal reward/punishment on someone. People accuse me of giving people too much benefit of the doubt, and think I am weak; they're wrong, and it's one of the gosh-darn hardest things to do sometimes.

What am I getting at? Let's face it, anyone pondering the question 'does intention matter' is not worring about someone else - they're worrying about themselves. What practical benefit is there of judging someone else's moral compass? But judging your own, ah! Probably the question someone is really asking is, should I feel so bad about screwing up so bad, because I didn't mean it?

Which is a rediculous question IMO, because it's usually seeking justification for what you've already decided to feel. Not always ...

[Plissken]

There is a theory that we all know what we're going to do ahead of time, and that the naming of intentions is just our way of rationalizing what we've already decided.

I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is interesting.

[The Somberlain]

Duck and weave: All I can say is, outside of court, who are we to judge someone's intentions? How, practically, can one do so? And of what practical benefit is it to do so?

Unfortunately, I'm not a believer in the the Big Slate, the Cosmic Abacus, the Heavenly Blackener/Whitener of Souls, or any other form of moral metric.

Personally, I try to live by judge not. Everyone forms opinions of people, but I try to be above average in seperating opinions from facts before I execute any personal reward/punishment on someone. People accuse me of giving people too much benefit of the doubt, and think I am weak; they're wrong, and it's one of the gosh-darn hardest things to do sometimes.

What am I getting at? Let's face it, anyone pondering the question 'does intention matter' is not worring about someone else - they're worrying about themselves. What practical benefit is there of judging someone else's moral compass? But judging your own, ah! Probably the question someone is really asking is, should I feel so bad about screwing up so bad, because I didn't mean it?

Which is a rediculous question IMO, because it's usually seeking justification for what you've already decided to feel. Not always ...

Ah, well, I too don't believe you can judge an intention as objectively good or bad, but the same applies for the consequence of the action. That doesn't stop me from having my own personal ethos by which I will, and do, judge others. I can't help that; if someone starts advocating something I strongly, strongly disapprove of, I will get angry and think "You're wrong! You're just plain WRONG! How can you THINK that way?"

But I understand that it's far from the "one and only" way of thinking, and I'm equally happy to keep my opinions to myself and respect theirs.

[The Laughing Man]

Wayfriend, the werd is "redonkulous", ok?

Editorial Note: This word is different from ridorkulous, ‘extremely dorky.’

www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/ridonkulous/



Pliss, sounds very new agey, any particular source(s)?

[Avatar]

I don't know where it's from, but I've seen something like that which Plissken mentions, and sometimes, when I have particularly little faith in humanity, I think it's quite plausible.

Good post WayFriend as usual, and the Somberlain too.

I think that WayFriend has a point, talking about the practicality of judging somebodies intentions. In almost all cases, what we are really judging is what we perceive those intentions to be, such as the movie star donating for PR reasons, as The Somberlain mentioned.

On the other and, we can judge an action, based on the admittedly subjective, but more easily determined, consequences of their action.

And what can we judge people on except what they say, and what they do?

--A

[The Laughing Man]

true, but isn't the entire law system based on intent ultimately? how about our whole way of life? aren't "bad things" better when the person "didn't mean it"?


DJM mentions something similar, "it's the dream that dreams the dreamer", and that the "dreaming body" is the actual decision maker, and that the "physical body" simply processes and coordinates those decisions. I imagine yours would look similar to a fax, --A!

[Avatar]

true, but isn't the entire law system based on intent ultimately? how about our whole way of life? aren't "bad things" better when the person "didn't mean it"?

Well, that's exactly what I'm asking. Is it not as bad when the person didn't mean it?

I think that it isn't as bad. But that's not much consolation if I'm sitting here with a hole in my head, and it's certainly not one to my family say.

There's another question...I was talking about action, which implies result as well. I suppose it also depends on the nature of both action and result.

Aah, it's a tough one really. I'm going to have to go with intent to a large degree though I think.

the "physical body" simply processes and coordinates those decisions. I imagine yours would look similar to a fax, --A!

Or at least, sound similar to one being read.

--A

[The Somberlain]

I think that it isn't as bad. But that's not much consolation if I'm sitting here with a hole in my head, and it's certainly not one to my family say.

Wouldn't it be?
I can't speak from experience, because I don't know anyone who's been murdered. But I imagine that, okay, I'd feel about the same level of aggrievement whether it had been unintentional or intentional... but that anger would not have the same focus. I'd certainly like to believe that I could realise that anger at the "injustice" of it would be understandable, but anger at the accidental killer... less so.

The only way I could understand saying that the intentions do not matter... would be if you take the attitude - taking the murder example again - that "You've taken a life, whether you meant to or not. You must be punished to repent for that."
Which I, personally, don't follow.

[Avatar]

I don't know. I too like to think that I could seperate the result from the intention. I like to think a lot of things about myself though.

But on the whole I think I agree with you Somberlain.

--A

[Digital Thought]

q[so what do the reasons behind it matter?]q

A person in Nebraska has grown up in a good home & she is a well adjusted student getting a B+ average & enjoying time with her friends and her family. Another person in Las Vegas is doing Meth & stealing cars. I think it is obvious to draw from such extremes we will find ourselves. We do good things & bad things, morally, legally, ethically, personally, and in everyway mess things up and try to straighten them up again. It’s just life.

So when I see a post about intention mattering or not, it does raise my eyebrows.

Well, let’s also consider that sometimes people do consider to do harm to someone. There’s really nothing that’s to be done in that circumstance except to fight or flight, even if flight means obey the guy with the gun. It’s not like in the movies. You either deal or piss your pants. Also, there are just some flat out crazy people out there. None of your logic or reasoning will ever matter to them.

Anyway, I liked the post. It’s a good way to think it out. I don’t know if you like my answers or not, but that’s how I look at it. NODS…