Do Intentions Count?

Originally Posted by Ti Dominant

So even if someone can't be faulted for inadvertently causing an accident, the fact that they did cause the accident is what matters, so that they should be punished anyway as if they had intended it? Is that what you're saying?

I haven't come to many conclusions about morality/ethics. If your shirt snags on a fire alarm, accidentally setting it off, are you fully responsible? My inclination is "no". However, if one acts carelessly and causes a car accident, I would hold them responsible. Ugh!

Originally Posted by EmotionallyTonedGeometry

You are reading into my post. The only issue I am writing about is that an intention detached from action is devoid of value.

I just don't see the point. Rarely will anyone think an intention actually holds weight, in and of itself, without regard for the actual actions and consequences with which they are related. So why point out the obvious? Many people seem to be saying that intentions are simply to be take more into consideration, with more emphasis and weight than actions—not that they are self-important with no consideration for actions at all.

Hence, speaking about intentions holding weight without regard for actions just seems to be a giant strawman, because no one's saying anything remotely similar to that.

Maybe you could have written something more positive...

I do apologize.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I haven't come to many conclusions about morality/ethics. If your shirt snags on a fire alarm, accidentally setting it off, are you fully responsible? My inclination is "no". However, if one acts carelessly and causes a car accident, I would hold them responsible. Ugh!

Okay. So you do agree that where a situation is out of someone's control, where their intentions are good, yet in which case they happen to cause harm to others, that it's not really their "fault." Also, you agree that recklessness and ignorance are no excuse for improper actions that lead to bad outcomes, regardless of any potential good-will involved.

Perhaps you just worded what you meant incorrectly. You seem to agree.
Yet, what did you mean about outcomes mattering most? That seems to contrast what you're now saying...

Originally Posted by Ti Dominant

Okay. So you do agree that where a situation is out of someone's control, where their intentions are good, yet in which case they happen to cause harm to others, that it's not really their "fault." Also, you agree that recklessness and ignorance are no excuse for improper actions that lead to bad outcomes, regardless of any potential good-will involved.

Perhaps you just worded what you meant incorrectly. You seem to agree.
Yet, what did you mean about outcomes mattering most? That seems to contrast what you're now saying...

Yes, I agree that recklessness is no excuse. I was talking more generally about ethics before; not specifically punishment. The goal is to do as much good as possible. How could one reach such a goal? Intent to do good (with knowledge of situations, and possible consequences).

Intentions come from the heart.

An Islamic saying;
''If it is reformed, the whole body becomes good, but if it gets spoilt the whole body gets spoilt; indeed it is the heart.”

Originally Posted by Alice in Wonderland

How relevaent are Good intentions if the actual effects of an action are negative? Is there ever a point where good intentions are irrelevent because the effects of the action are so disasterous? Discuss . . .

Intentions are relevant when it comes to judging character, not when it comes to judging decisions. If I accidentally step on a dog's tail, to the extent that I 'decided' to walk, it was a morally wrong decision that I cannot be blamed for. I consider ethics to be goal oriented, the right and wrong decisions are the ones that promote or counter ethical goals.

Intent! It’s Fucking Magic! « Genderbitch: Musings of a Trans Chick This pretty much sums it up for me, plus it's amusing to read.

Originally Posted by Alice in Wonderland

1. How relevaent are Good intentions if the actual effects of an action are negative? 2. Is there ever a point where good intentions are irrelevent because the effects of the action are so disasterous? Discuss . . .

1. I think this is a time when ethical relativism can be acceptable, if the good outweighs the bad in terms of intention versus action. I'm starting to think that if people really want to make a difference with their intentions, they would make the effort to make a <nyan>ing difference.

I'm pretty sure that 2's already been answered. That's my two cents on 1.