this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2025
6 points (75.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

28530 readers
1808 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Asking here because I don't think this has a concrete answer... (or maybe it does? Please let me know if there is one!)

So a lot of times good people do good things and bad people do bad things... but what if someone with malicious intent unintentially improved the world? Or vice versa, someone with all the right intentions but made things worse for everyone

I guess this can be applied to a lot of politicians, but the question isn't based on any real-life events

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] zxqwas@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Results first. Actions second. Intent third.

You can say your intent is anything and I've got no way of verifying this.

You can take good actions that make the situation worse. If noone warned you about the consequences I guess I can't blame you.

If the result is a net positive I won't complain too much. Even if you said you'd solve global warming by making fun of orphans and somehow made that work I'd quietly grumble about there must have been a better way but be happy that I don't have to deal with it.

[–] leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

actions.

in a 9-ball game, in order to pocket the last ball, you need to call your shot. the intent is always to pocket the last ball, but calling your intent is the action that counts.

needless to say, most people suck at communicating.

[–] Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Although I agree with your sentiment I have to wonder where your companions comes from.

According the UPA 9 ball is not a calling the pocket game:

https://upatour.com/9-ball-rules/

And although it's been literally years I've never participated in a tournament where this was the case.

Sorry to pull this on a tangent but I'm really curious where you're from as this seems to be s local deviation (for either or both of us, not saying one is better or worse).

oh, you are right! it might just be a local rule here in east asia.

[–] TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you're interested in further reading, the terminology for what you're describing is:

deontology (based on the action itself)
virtue ethics (based on the intent)
consequentialism (based on the outcome)

I would argue that there's no such thing as "good" people and "bad" people, nor even actions that are inherently good or bad themselves. Someone is, in my opinion, "good" if I feel more positively than negatively about the culmination of their actions, intents, and results.

To be clear though, my opinion on this is unpopular lol

[–] zlatiah@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Thanks! You put this better than I could. I was thinking that this has to be something philosophers have figured out or at least seriously investigated... I will look into these concepts

IMO this is the asklemmy community and I came here asking for opinions so... I think your opinion is quite valid

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So the three main branches of ethical philosophy are deontology, which is based on right intent, consequentialism, which is based on right outcome, and virtue ethics, which is based on right action.

All three agree that you should always try to do the right thing, but disagree as to how best to determine what that is. The deontologist says that consequences are unknowable so maintaining pure intent is the best strategy. The consequentialist says that intent doesn't matter, only the outcome, because that's what actually affects the world. The virue ethicist notes that both criticisms are true: intent is irrelevant and consequences are unknowable, so it's best to focus on acting in a way that's irreproachable.

To get back to your question, I think it's obvious how the deontologist and the consequentislist would answer, but it's up to me to answer for the side of virtue ethics. Say a man who kicks a dog out of malice, and then the dog's owner rushes them to the vet, where they learn the dog had a condition, easily treatable but hard to detect, that would've killed it in two months. Bad intent, good outcome. Deontologist hates him, Consequentialist sees a mitzvah, but me? Kicking puppies is wrong. It doesn't matter why you're kicking them. You can't reasonably expect it to save the dog's life. The action itself is contemptible.

[–] TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think you have virtue ethics and deontology backwards?

Edit: autocorrect

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago

Intentions, of course, since they indicate how someone is likely to behave in the future. Even if you end up causing harm while intending to do good, that doesn’t lead me to expect you’ll continue causing harm. But the opposite is true if your intention was to cause harm. This holds true even if no actual harm was done - the fact that someone intended harm says a lot about them.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 6 points 2 days ago

Based on what they try to do. Negligence can be bad of course, but making honest mistakes is no ones fault. If they're doing harmful things though, even if they can still be considered a good person, it can be a moral obligation to stop them.

[–] rainrain@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago

Both are based upon rationality, which is always broken.

I prefer aesthetics/feeling-of-rightness.

[–] spittingimage@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Actions. I know too many people who 'really meant to' do that awesome thing but somehow never got around to it.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 day ago

There are too many variables for there to be one answer.

For instance, are their intentions sincere or just claimed? If they fail to carry through, is it because of things outside of their control or just because they can't be bothered to put out any real effort?

Or from the other end, if their actions are harmful, is that by design or inadvertent? If inadvertent, do they feel any regret or do they just treat it as too damned bad?

And so on.

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago

Both, but on the condition it's a bit more nuanced than that. Are we talking matters of culture shock, accidents, misunderstandings, a failure of restraint, things you regret later, things that sounded good at the time, things done under duress, things done while drunk, things meant to be humorous, etc.? Some things are circumstantial as opposed to up to any human factor, and these are more able to be looked past. But I'm also not going to yield every time someone who is drunk does something they typically wouldn't do when sober.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

You're walking down a busy street while texting. Oops! You stepped on a kitten! Is it animal abuse? Intention is (almost) everything because it suggests what you would do if you had the means to do so, or if you felt you could get away with it.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was hoping it'd be this.

[–] ehpolitical@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Intentions, assuming their intentions are sincere... cause in that case, it's just a mistake if it doesn't work out.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago

I go further. I think we are all our actions. I think our actions define us.