The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Intentions versus Resultsin Philosophy

MayCaesar

I came across this lecture by Milton Friedman today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Tf8RN3uiM

In it, he suggests an interesting paradigm: that a given action/proposal should be judged not by its intentions, but by its results. Along the famous wisdom that "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", he points out how socialism, allegedly intended to benefit the workers, ends up disadvantaging them, while capitalism, allegedly intended to benefit the individual at the expense of everyone else, advantages everyone.

Now, it is worth pointing out that in the real world we cannot always predict the results accurately. However, based on historical evidence, as well as common logic, we can often deduce that certain actions are very likely to lead to negative consequences. As such, we do have a certain degree of control over the results of our actions.

He says that no system is moral or immoral, and that alleged intentions of the system are completely irrelevant to the question of morality. The consequences are the only relevant part of the equation, and they should be the focus of the political and economical discussions, with the question of morality and intentions put aside.

What do you think about this paradigm?

Plaffelvohfen

Well, that's consequentialism... 

It kind of make sense, but under consequentialism, attempted murder may not be a crime if the target isn't harmed in any way, since intent doesn't matter...

Bernard Williams has argued that consequentialism is alienating because it requires moral agents to put too much distance between themselves and their own projects and commitments. Williams argues that consequentialism requires moral agents to take a strictly impersonal view of all actions, since it is only the consequences, and not who produces them, that are said to matter. Williams argues that this demands too much of moral agents—since (he claims) consequentialism demands that they be willing to sacrifice any and all personal projects and commitments in any given circumstance in order to pursue the most beneficent course of action possible.

Funny thing is also that both Ethical Egoism and Ethical Altruism can be seen as a consequentialist ethics...

Utilitarianism is also a family of consequentialist ethical theories, and I find Utilitarianism problematic...

Oppolzer

I think that a person should be judged by their intentions, but held responsible for their actions, regardless of intent.

A person attempts to do evil and fails - but they were still attempting to do evil, and should be judged for their intentions. 

A person attempts to do good and fails - they should not be judged as an evil person but held responsible for their actions.

We generally judge our own actions by intent and other people's actions by the result, since we don't honestly know that other person's intentions. And in that case, actions speak louder than intent. Actions are the most practical way to judge someone, but the intentions are where that person's true morality exists. And personally, I believe that intentions are more important than the result. Intentions are the primary cause of actions, whether you're aware of it or not.