Intent Vs. Consequences

[professa X]

So this is a topic i got into on a bus ride home. It was a small bus and so may people. So a thirty minute ride with people so close to each other can be awkward. One guy couldn't stand the madness and asked me if I would indulge him in an intellectual conversation. I agreed and the topic: intention vs the consequences of a person's actions. Needless to say this guy was a psyc major. He asked should a person be judged based on their intentions or the consequences of their actions. So i wanna know what you all believe. Explain your choice with an example/counter examples or two.

Food for thought:

if intent:

then take the case of Hitler. He and those who followed him believed that Germany needed to get rid of the Jews in order to stabilize the country. His intent was to save his beloved country.

if Consequences:

remember when all you wanted to do was help but you ended up making the situation worse!

[Xanders]

Personally I can't anyone, because mostly it depends on the situation, like my friends are just trying to help me out but things ended up in a very awkward way and worst case scenarios. I can't blame them for what happens to me because they were just trying to help (can't blame them for trying).

As for intentions. i would say like Hitler who tried to blow jews up the consequence was the results of many deaths of jews. I judge him on his intentions and because he tried to kill people! Like sabotage, I was sabotaged by my relatives as a prank which consequence of me loosing all my data on my computer I judge them on intention not on consequence because they tried to sabotage me.

Also when there's Intention there's bound to be consequence is really up to you to decide which to judge them on.

[lemmingllama]

Intentions aren't exactly how you are portraying it. I will be using your example of Hitler to justify this.

 

Basically, the intention of killing Jews is still the intention to kill Jews. It may have had a reason, such as making them scapegoats so people wouldn't be mad at the Nazi's and ensure that they could keep all the people in check as well as give everyone a common enemy, but they still intended to kill the Jews.

 

All in all, a mixture of both is the proper answer for any human. Hitler intended to kill the Jews and then killed some of the Jews(consequence), therefore he isn't a nice guy.

[professa X]

Indeed i agree. It is a mixture of the two. But  what the psyc major was getting at was that these are questions of perspective. It is all about the angle you wish to look at it. anybody can cover their horrible actions by pleading that they are of not sound mind to do any action as we see often times. And becuz of this unstable mixture of intent and consequences they are able to be set free. Hanz Zimmermman gets away with shooting a child becuz intent then gets arrested for allegedly pointing a gun at his girlfriend? here the mans intent sways but the results of his actions potentially does not(shooting or intent of shooting). I say we cannot stop at intent if we cannot find guilt their. We must look into the consequence. So ultimately judgement of character is based on consequence first for me. Suppose a man intended to hurt someone(which only the truth of his intent is with him)  but did not. we cannot stand their and pick at this non physical evidence. the human psych is easily malleable to any situation but the results of actions are not. The only thing holding back this logic is in the case of honest accidents. But can we allow the many wronged go for the actions of the few?

[Cherryblossoms]

I believe that, yes it should be a mixture of both, but intent may be more important. The intention behind the deed generally seems to be why one person killing someone is different then another person doing the same. For example, Hitler's intention was to kill the Jews, to save his country. This resulted in a larger consequence then, say a police officer who has to kill someone to stop them from shooting others. Both intend to kill someone, But the one with a larger consequence is the one With a Broader intention. Hitler wanted to kill all Jews thinking it would save the country. The police officer only wanted to kill the person who was a threat to others, to save innocent lives. One was killing innocent civilians, the other is killing one, to save many. The intention is what makes one person considered a horrible person, and the other a hero. But you could also say it's the scale of the consequence. Hitler's action caused the death of thousands, The police officers was only one or two. But the reason I believe the intentions matter, is because both are still killing people, and to me it does not matter if it's one or one hundred if your killing innocent people. The only difference for me that makes one person a monster and the other a hero is that one was intentionally killing thousands without any real need of it, while the other didn't have much of a choice and only wanted to save people, or at least minimise the casualties.