I think we've all had experience doing something with good intentions and having the result not go exactly as planned. On the other hand, I'm sure we've also been hurt by those who don't mean to hurt us.
If you consider the two extremes of intentions not mattering or intentions being all that matter in an interaction with someone, you could make an argument for both sides.
For intentions not mattering, one can turn to David Hume. If you've read my piece on science, then you're already familiar with some of Hume's ideas. Another one of his ideas pertains to morality. He asserts that because science gives nothing normative, morality is completely independent of so-called "rationality". In addition, there is no such thing as an objectively good action. In fact, where can one find the "good" in an action? For example, consider this: someone gives their friend ten dollars. Good action? Well, what if that person had stolen that ten dollars? But is stealing inherently bad? Couldn't it also depend? What Hume says is that there is nothing within the action itself that is good or bad. This is something that we decide through our reactions to the action. So, if the receiver of the ten dollars is happy and likes the action, that means the action was good. Then again, if you consider the person whose money was stolen, that part of the action was bad because they didn't like it, and most likely neither did others around them. Thomas Hobbes has a similar theory on morality, saying that what is considered "good" and "bad" are things we like and dislike, respectively. The intentions, for both these philosophers, don't matter at all; all falls on the feelings of the observers and/or receivers.
On the other hand, intentions being all that matter can be seen in ideas like "it's the thought that counts" or even legal cases. Granted, in legal cases, intentions are not all that matter, but they are taken heavily into account: if you accidentally kill someone, you'll probably be charged with involuntary manslaughter, while a premeditated murder would be considered a much more severe crime. The end result is the same, but the intentions matter. In addition, when considering the common phrase "it's the thought that counts", that implies that the intentions of whatever action are effectively all that matters (or at least the most important thing).
Both sides can be argued for, though it's quite clear that the latter is harder to defend if it were to be completely all up to intentions. Regardless, it's reasonable to assert that this issue, like most, cannot be reduced to a black and white scenario.
What are we to do with this under consideration? Well, I think there are a myriad of directions to go in from here. I'd like to look at two: your own actions, and your feelings about another's actions.
First, regarding your own actions, it might be important to lean more towards Hume's ideas. While your intentions are not pointless, when interacting with another person, it's more important to consider how a certain action will affect them. While you don't owe anybody anything, being kind is free. Even if you do something with good or at least neutral intentions, if you hurt someone, it really doesn't matter that you didn't mean to. It's important to own up to these things and recognize the fault in your actions, despite your intentions.
On the other hand, when considering a case in which someone hurt you, though it depends on circumstances, it could help to think of their intentions if you want to heal. However, there is a point that you have to listen to Hume and recognize repeated actions that affect you detrimentally. Intentions shouldn't be used as an excuse. I suppose one way to think about it is that you should consider intentions only up to a point. If there's a pattern of negative behavior, it's time to stop excusing their behavior with intentions.
There's no one-size-fits-all solution for these things, and circumstances are different for everyone. But the one thing that can be trusted is your gut—your instincts. It will tell you when you should listen to Hume. Maybe consider intentions more in some cases and less in others—whatever makes you feel best.
If you consider the two extremes of intentions not mattering or intentions being all that matter in an interaction with someone, you could make an argument for both sides.
For intentions not mattering, one can turn to David Hume. If you've read my piece on science, then you're already familiar with some of Hume's ideas. Another one of his ideas pertains to morality. He asserts that because science gives nothing normative, morality is completely independent of so-called "rationality". In addition, there is no such thing as an objectively good action. In fact, where can one find the "good" in an action? For example, consider this: someone gives their friend ten dollars. Good action? Well, what if that person had stolen that ten dollars? But is stealing inherently bad? Couldn't it also depend? What Hume says is that there is nothing within the action itself that is good or bad. This is something that we decide through our reactions to the action. So, if the receiver of the ten dollars is happy and likes the action, that means the action was good. Then again, if you consider the person whose money was stolen, that part of the action was bad because they didn't like it, and most likely neither did others around them. Thomas Hobbes has a similar theory on morality, saying that what is considered "good" and "bad" are things we like and dislike, respectively. The intentions, for both these philosophers, don't matter at all; all falls on the feelings of the observers and/or receivers.
On the other hand, intentions being all that matter can be seen in ideas like "it's the thought that counts" or even legal cases. Granted, in legal cases, intentions are not all that matter, but they are taken heavily into account: if you accidentally kill someone, you'll probably be charged with involuntary manslaughter, while a premeditated murder would be considered a much more severe crime. The end result is the same, but the intentions matter. In addition, when considering the common phrase "it's the thought that counts", that implies that the intentions of whatever action are effectively all that matters (or at least the most important thing).
Both sides can be argued for, though it's quite clear that the latter is harder to defend if it were to be completely all up to intentions. Regardless, it's reasonable to assert that this issue, like most, cannot be reduced to a black and white scenario.
What are we to do with this under consideration? Well, I think there are a myriad of directions to go in from here. I'd like to look at two: your own actions, and your feelings about another's actions.
First, regarding your own actions, it might be important to lean more towards Hume's ideas. While your intentions are not pointless, when interacting with another person, it's more important to consider how a certain action will affect them. While you don't owe anybody anything, being kind is free. Even if you do something with good or at least neutral intentions, if you hurt someone, it really doesn't matter that you didn't mean to. It's important to own up to these things and recognize the fault in your actions, despite your intentions.
On the other hand, when considering a case in which someone hurt you, though it depends on circumstances, it could help to think of their intentions if you want to heal. However, there is a point that you have to listen to Hume and recognize repeated actions that affect you detrimentally. Intentions shouldn't be used as an excuse. I suppose one way to think about it is that you should consider intentions only up to a point. If there's a pattern of negative behavior, it's time to stop excusing their behavior with intentions.
There's no one-size-fits-all solution for these things, and circumstances are different for everyone. But the one thing that can be trusted is your gut—your instincts. It will tell you when you should listen to Hume. Maybe consider intentions more in some cases and less in others—whatever makes you feel best.
Comments
Post a Comment