Query- Evil Intentions
ROY...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Just a quick philosophical question which relates to religeous zealots:
If you commit an act with 'good' intent, but the consequences are 'evil'
was the act 'good' or 'evil'?
If you commit an act with 'evil' intent, but the consequences are 'good'
was the act 'good' or 'evil'?
Just a bit of chronocide.... /x
Thomas S. Marlowe
ROY...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
> Just a quick philosophical question which relates to religeous zealots:
>
> If you commit an act with 'good' intent, but the consequences are 'evil'
> was the act 'good' or 'evil'?
>
> If you commit an act with 'evil' intent, but the consequences are 'good'
> was the act 'good' or 'evil'?
Hmm. We just got an explanation in Philosophy class that satisfied me
on the
ends/means issue and intent.
Certainly the primary thing that determines the evil of an action is
the intent. If I intend to kill you and fail, I still am evil (well,
if you are the target maybe it's a different story :-> Just kidding.
So, the intent is of primary importance. Now, some point out that
there are consequences that might happen that we should know about
(i.e. I try to save your life by using leeches. This is an evil
action, even though my intent was good.)
The reason that Mill uses is that the forseeable consequences ought to
be looked at. If someone, taking into account all of the forseeable
consequences, does an action that they know will harm (evil intent),
this action is evil. If they missed some unforseeable event (natural
disaster), then their action is not evil.
So, EVIL is based upon intent. However, intent needs to be accompanied
by a rational look at the consequences of the act.
Got it?
TSM.