Good Intentions

What is good? If my intent is to serve my own needs, that's good intention, right?

rugadd wrote: Cabur Senaar hit on something I want to ask a question about...

Can intentions be considered good with out a mentality of self improvement?

or

What good are good intentions when we still hurt other people regardless?

I guess I regard meaning well as an incomplete good. Not bad on its own as such, but great plans still need great execution. In certain situations, where I am unskilled, I will do more harm than good. If you need an oil change, for instance, I am not your guy. I could refer you to someone or help you pay, but for the task itself, I am not the guy. I know that about myself. In other things, I strive to get better and better at the skill.

We're going to mess up. Bank on that. We then have an oppurtunity to learn a better move.

Helps if the intention is focused on the results :lol:

Kant argues that we are morally responsible for only those things which are in our control. He argues that the actual outcome of our actions aren't solely within our control, but that intentions are entirely within our control. So, we should be held responsible for the intentions we have whenever we go through with an action. Of course, with that line of reasoning any action can be justified. The consequentialist argues that it is the outcome alone which matters, since that actually takes place in reality and isn't limited to something as obscure and unseen as "intentions", which you could very well lie about at any given time. An issue with consequentialism is the doctrine of double effect, that unintended effects can take place due to our actions alongside the intended effects, and those unintended consequences can be dire. I, however, generally take the consequentialist view.

Intent cannot ever be proven. And ultimately, if you shoot a gun intending just to be excited by the loud noise and happen to hit an innocent bystander, you're still responsible for hurting that person! So I can't see how you would put much stock into the idea that intentions alone matter.

rugadd wrote: Cabur Senaar hit on something I want to ask a question about...

Can intentions be considered good with out a mentality of self improvement?

or

What good are good intentions when we still hurt other people regardless?

When I was in college I broke up with a girlfriend because I realized I did not love her and was not willing to pretend otherwise. It was hard because I did hurt her, but remaining in the relationship would have been worse in the long run. I was hurt by it as well since I DID care about her, just not to that level of commitment. Was this "good" or "right" even though I caused pain?

I don't really know the answer but I DID feel better when she stopped by my apartment about a year later and told me she forgave me and that she was super happy in her current relationship. Maybe it was 80% good and 20% not? Is that a valid assertion?

I will quote here a game that is called BlazBlue. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I took that phrase to me because usually I try to fix things and help people, but overall I screw it up, but unintentionally, so I try to watch what I do. I think if you really want to help and people and something goes wrong, it happens to and may even be remediable, but if we do it in an irresponsible or abusive manner, then it becomes something disturbing. By helping others I try to be impartial and responsible with my actions

Kamizu wrote: are we responsible for the results of our actions or only the intent of them?

Any answer I come up with for this question seems to be a grand generalization. The thing is, every situation is different. Intentions and responsibilities get mixed around, seemingly random events occur, and eventually we're talking about fate or destiny.

Are we responsible for anything? Doesn't everything happen for a reason, regardless of who is responsible or what our intention was?

Ultimately, I find that there are no answers for this sort of thing, only questions. And questions are far more useful than answers.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

A better question would be. Do you really know what the other person intended or are you (general) just assuming you know?

Everything I do is with the intentions of doing and being good. And yet I get alot of wild assumptions about me and my Intentions, folks putting their own intention into my own....thus causing quite a blunder.

Like Streen stated...It depends on the situation.

Kamizu wrote: ...are we responsible for the results of our actions or only the intent of them?

The short answer is Yes.

The Dude wrote: ...if you shoot a gun intending just to be excited by the loud noise and happen to hit an innocent bystander, you're still responsible for hurting that person! So I can't see how you would put much stock into the idea that intentions alone matter.

This is a great, albeit drastic, example. Was the intent harm, no. Was the result harm, yes. We should take both into consideration.

When you really break it down we can see it as a transaction involving two people, the person hurt and the one that hurt them. We also have two aspects of the transaction, the intent and the result. At the time of the transaction the intent is in the mind of the person who hurt the other and the result is more immediately in the mind of the person who was hurt. This is where a lot of people tend to stop.

After the fact the person who was hurt should take a look at the other person's intentions. Did they mean to hurt me? Was this an accident? The person that hurt the other should also look at the results. Did I hurt them? Could I have avoided that? Both sides should examine both aspects.

What happens after that is very much dependent on the actual situation. In The Dude's example the one who pulled the trigger should probably go to jail or at the very least have some sort of probation and not be allowed to own a firearm. That wasn't just an accident, it was negligence. If the issue was an accidental insult than the insulting party can learn not to do it again and the insulted party can forgive (though probably not forget).