What matters more, intention or consequence?

[magpie]

It depends on the situation. Sometimes, intention matters a ton, sometimes not at all. Sometimes the consequences matter, sometimes not at all. Sometimes it's a mix of both.

They are both independent variables. They relate to one another, and effect each other, but can be completely isolated from one another.

Would you mind giving examples?

 

[Coriolis]

It is highly dependent on the scenario, though the former usually has a greater emphasis.

Example: A child runs out in front of your car.

A: You frantically try to do everything in your power not to hit the child. You would never wish to do that to anyone. Tragically, you accidentally kill the child. You feel overwhelming remorse and guilt for what you have just done.

B: A slow grin forms on your face as you press your foot harder onto the gas pedal. You barrel straight into the child, killing him...and it gives you an immense feeling of satisfaction.

Why in the world would we punish the two the same?

But it's all the same to the child, who is just as dead either way. The main difference in scenario B is that actual intervention may be required to prevent such a person from killing additional children just to get his jollies. The enormous remorse of the person in situation A should prevent that on its own. So, the difference lies primarily in what needs to be done to prevent recurrence of the consequence.

Do people like this actually exist, or is this a cartoonish caricature of what we perceive evil to be?

How would you characterize a pedophile priest?

Consider: If new user 1010830 gives offensively shitty and potentially harmful advice but just intended to "answer the question. It's not rocket science" and user DG is alarmed and/or offended at the shitty advice, does DG have a right to be alarmed/offended, if the intention wasn't to alarm or offend? Was any offense commited? Was it even possible for new user 1010830 to give bad advice if (s)he didn't intend to? And does new user 1010830's own admittance to lack of empathy make him/her a bad person?

1. DG has a right to feel alarmed, regardless of intent. Whether that alarm is justified depends on the actual quality of the advice.

2. Offense is in the eye of the beholder. Alarm is a bit more objective. If we see or smell smoke at our office, we are justified in feeling alarm, but it would be foolish to take offense.

3. It is definitely possible to give bad advice unintentionally. Often when we seek advice from close friends or relatives - i.e. those we trust - they cannot give it because they don't have the necessary expertise. They try, and often end up giving rather poor advice in their ignorance.

4. As for whether lack of empathy makes someone bad, we must first agree on what constitutes "bad". I would say if the lack of empathy doesn't result in harm to others, it cannot in and of itself make a person "bad".

 

[21%]

For me, intention means a lot. Still, it never excuses the consequences. Whatever your intentions were, you are responsible for any consequences arising from your actions (or inaction).

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I was hoping we could talk about motivation, intent, action, and consequence without resorting to reductive, easy, and obfuscatory terms like narcissism, sadism, or evil.

Does anyone ever not act from a place of good intention, or not assume they're doing the right thing? What makes an action wrong or bad? If what makes an action wrong is that someone is harmed by it, does the intention of the person who carried out the harmful action matter? What matters more, the intention of the person not to harm or the fact that a person was harmed? Can a person even be harmed by someone who did not intend to do harm? Does anyone ever intend to harm?

Great thread topic.

People do intend harm when they are angry, but most anger is experienced as being just, and the intentional harm is viewed as punishment. I've tended to reject the notion of punishment because it is the justification for most of the cruelty in the world.

The second way I've observed that people cause harm is when something falls outside their consciousness. People will harm or eat animals that are intelligent, empathetic, etc. because that consciousness falls outside their own. People will categorize and dismiss entire groups of people and have their needs fall outside of their consciousness.

The most extreme cases are political tyrants, abusers, and serial killers. These people deliberately plan to cause harm. What is their internal justification? I think there is a combination of anger and assuming their actions are just punishments, or they see the object of their cruelty as having no worth, so it is like harming a stone.

 

[Forever]

In a sense this is another Fi vs Fe thread. Lol. May it never end.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

In my mind it comes down to a question of what we have control over.

If you intend something good, but chance and circumstance destroy your good intentions, then I value the intention more than the consequence. Mistakes happen, and I can absolutely relate to that. If the circumstance doesn't represent the true nature of the intention - the person meant to come visit you when you were sick, but their car was totaled, or they had depression and couldn't leave the house, or they genuinely got confused and forgot, but regret forgetting, etc. then I see that as not even needing forgiveness. It is the thought that counts.

If they have control over the outcome, it goes as planned, and it causes harm, pain, and destruction, then I cease to see the value of the 'good' intention because people have a responsibility to learn and revise their world view to be kinder. If the intention is a justification for causing harm and destroying lives, then I look to the consequence as a way to challenge the notion of someone's intention. At that point 'good intentions' are just backwards reasoning to justify what is clearly an expression of anger, entitlement, cruelty.

 

[magpie]

But it's all the same to the child, who is just as dead either way. The main difference in scenario B is that actual intervention may be required to prevent such a person from killing additional children just to get his jollies. The enormous remorse of the person in situation A should prevent that on its own. So, the difference lies primarily in what needs to be done to prevent recurrence of the consequence.

Thank you for being the first person to acknowledge this from the child's perspective. Why do you think people, despite tending to agree that consequence matters more than intention, tend to focus on the person who is intending rather than the person receiving the consequence?

How would you characterize a pedophile priest?

I'm not sure? That's why I made this thread. Objectively I can of course understand that pedophile priests hurt people and this is horrific and unnaceptable and deeply disturbing, but I have a hard time trying to place the motivation and I think their must be one. I think their actions must seem right to them or else they wouldn't act in such a way.

4. As for whether lack of empathy makes someone bad, we must first agree on what constitutes "bad". I would say if the lack of empathy doesn't result in harm to others, it cannot in and of itself make a person "bad".

I was mostly just jokingly pointing out the similar pattern the posts on this thread had taken to my OP, but this is interesting. Why then is narcissist used pejoratively as a term, if its definition is lack of empathy, and if lack of empathy on its own doesn't make a person bad (do you think)?

Great thread topic.

People do intend harm when they are angry, but most anger is experienced as being just, and the intentional harm is viewed as punishment. I've tended to reject the notion of punishment because it is the justification for most of the cruelty in the world.

The second way I've observed that people cause harm is when something falls outside their consciousness. People will harm or eat animals that are intelligent, empathetic, etc. because that consciousness falls outside their own. People will categorize and dismiss entire groups of people and have their needs fall outside of their consciousness.

The most extreme cases are political tyrants, abusers, and serial killers. These people deliberately plan to cause harm. What is their internal justification? I think there is a combination of anger and assuming their actions are just punishments, or they see the object of their cruelty as having no worth, so it is like harming a stone.

This is a great post. Thank you.

 

[magpie]

In my mind it comes down to a question of what we have control over.

If you intend something good, but chance and circumstance destroy your good intentions, then I value the intention more than the consequence. Mistakes happen, and I can absolutely relate to that. If the circumstance doesn't represent the true nature of the intention - the person meant to come visit you when you were sick, but their car was totaled, or they had depression and couldn't leave the house, or they genuinely got confused and forgot, but regret forgetting, etc. then I see that as not even needing forgiveness. It is the thought that counts.

If they have control over the outcome, it goes as planned, and it causes harm, pain, and destruction, then I cease to see the value of the 'good' intention because people have a responsibility to learn and revise their world view to be kinder. If the intention is a justification for causing harm and destroying lives, then I look to the consequence as a way to challenge the notion of someone's intention. At that point 'good intentions' are just backwards reasoning to justify what is clearly an expression of anger, entitlement, cruelty.

What if, in regard to your last paragraph, there were a moral dilemma where someone harmed someone extensively but it's possible? the person who carrried out the actions really, truly believed that they were helping. What would this mean about intention vs consequence then?

 

[Destiny]

Intentions definitely matters more than consequences. It's our intentions that defines who we are.

Let's say a guy cheats on his gf. And he only feels remorseful and decided to repent after his gf found out about it. But if his gf didn't found out about it he would continue cheating on her behind her back. What does this say about his character? He lacked morals and the only reason why he stopped cheating on his gf is because he doesn't want to be caught by his gf again.

And have you ever wondered what would the guy's gf think if she found out that his main reason behind why he stopped cheating on her is because of his fear of the consequences, and not because he truly loves her? She would feel so damn hurt by this.

So this is what I meant by intentions matters more than consequences. There is a very huge difference between a person doing something out of intentions vs a person doing something out of consequences. One defines who we are as a person and our instinctual reaction toward situations, and the other defines our ability to think rationally instead of thinking with our heart.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

What if, in regard to your last paragraph, there were a moral dilemma where someone harmed someone extensively but it's possible? the person who carrried out the actions really, truly believed that they were helping. What would this mean about intention vs consequence then?

That is the core of the question in the thread. I was parsing out the extremes on both sides. Ideally I would hope that if there was a way for the suffering of the object of their harm to enter their consciousness that they would feel remorse and change their intentions. But, what if there is no way for it to enter their consciousness? Then I guess there is the question of how the universe, god, karma, etc would serve consequences to the idealist perpetrator. I would count the consequence on the victim as being the only thing we might have control over stopping. In that way the consequence is more pragmatically important.

This is also why I'm against concept punishment (inflicting harm on perpetrators) as part of justice. I approach these violations as needing to be stopped, the problem needs to be solved, but with the minimal sense of 'punishment'. I personally consider it immoral to intentionally inflict pain on anyone, although if someone were harming another person badly enough and I had to kill them to stop them, I perhaps would. I would never torture someone though. On some level we cannot ever judge the perpetrator. This is a disturbing truth I've learned - that there is always a reason for why people cause harm. From their perspective it is typically justified. There is one level of any sentient being that we cannot judge because we could perhaps be the same if we had their genetics and environment. I suspect each person is what humanity looks like when subjected to a certain set of conditions. To what extent can they choose to be different? I don't know a way to figure it out. I try to maintain a mindset that I will not fully judge a person, but will act to stop them.

This question you ask in the thread can lead to the question of free will. We can be judged to the extent we have control over our actions. This idea of a person having 'good, sincere intentions', but causing harm is a question of free will. To what extent can they comprehend and change their actions? I don't know.

 

[ceecee]

I'm not sure? That's why I made this thread. Objectively I can of course understand that pedophile priests hurt people and this is horrific and unnaceptable and deeply disturbing, but I have a hard time trying to place the motivation and I think their must be one. I think their actions must seem right to them or else they wouldn't act in such a way.

I've heard everything from these priests were poisoned by the sexual revolution in the 60's to them not being pedophiles at all, due to many victims being older adolescents (ephebophilia). I think their motivation is often complex. One reason is opportunity. The other is repression of sexual urges, tremendous guilt from being a closeted gay man or sexual abuse of their own.

I don't buy the sexual revolution theory at all since this was happening long before the 1960's. So opportunity could be the motivation but I don't think their actions seem right to them at all. They justify it by placing blame elsewhere, blaming the victim or blaming the oppression of the church. Sure they could stop being a priest but, try telling lots of people that they need help or why don't they just leave? Not happening.

 

[Bush]

Consequence more than intention, but it doesn't completely trump it.

If you really, really, really intend to do something, then there's a strong chance of that thing happening.

.. in the very, very, very general sense.

 

[magpie]

So it would be fair to assume for a person performing an action, intention matters, and for a person receiving an action, consequence matters. In a very general sense.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

So it would be fair to assume for a person performing an action, intention matters, and for a person receiving an action, consequence matters. In a very general sense.

That is an excellent way to say it succinctly.

 

[evilrubberduckie]

Intention.

" its the thought that counts"

Sounds familiar right?

 

[magpie]

Intention.

" its the thought that counts"

Sounds familiar right?

Yes. But you can't accomplish very much at all with just a thought.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Intentions definitely matters more than consequences. It's our intentions that defines who we are.

Let's say a guy cheats on his gf. And he only feels remorseful and decided to repent after his gf found out about it. But if his gf didn't found out about it he would continue cheating on her behind her back. What does this say about his character? He lacked morals and the only reason why he stopped cheating on his gf is because he doesn't want to be caught by his gf again.

And have you ever wondered what would the guy's gf think if she found out that his main reason behind why he stopped cheating on her is because of his fear of the consequences, and not because he truly loves her? She would feel so damn hurt by this.

So this is what I meant by intentions matters more than consequences. There is a very huge difference between a person doing something out of intentions vs a person doing something out of consequences. One defines who we are as a person and our instinctual reaction toward situations, and the other defines our ability to think rationally instead of thinking with our heart.

This is a really important POV because it shows that an action can be almost fully defined by its intention, which is another important layer.

This resonates with something I was thinking about with this topic - intention is more important for relationships that involve trust. If you have a close friend or lover, then the intentions of their actions are much more important than the intention behind an employer's decision to give you a raise. Perhaps the employer is prejudiced in your favor, or is using your raise as some economic strategy and doesn't care at all about the quality of your work. Or perhaps the mayor gets rid of a trash dumping ground near your house in order to look good and doesn't care about your house at all. Or if you are starving and a stranger gives you bread in order to feel self-righteous. If I'm hungry enough, then I'm not going to care why. Those intentions are not as important as the consequences because there is not as much established trust.

Intention is more important when the relationship is about internal trust of each other's character. Consequence is more important when the personal relationship aspect is less relevant.

 

[magpie]

But like you said, even if the intention wasn't honourable, the homeless man is still getting food, so does it matter? And similarly, the man has still stopped cheating on his girlfriend.

I feel like there is some context or framework of human behaviour/social or moral code that most people consider to be objective or take for granted that is probably missing for me which is making this extremely difficult for me as a cognitive exercise. Is anyone else getting that sense?

 

[evilrubberduckie]

Yes. But you can't accomplish very much at all with just a thought.

Oh contrair. A thought sparks action. Without thought, the action you put behind it UTTERLY pointless.

Intention is what sparked the consequence (or otherwise) to begin with. You cant skip the first step. Ergo intention is more important. Because its what leads us the the consequence(or otherwise) and learning from it.

Ergo. " Its the thought that counts."

 

[magpie]

Without thought, the action you put behind it udderly pointless.

Only if you're a cow.

Edit: If it's important to you, then I admit defeat. (But it's not that serious. As in, I never thought you were wrong.)