• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Master/slave

swilow

swilow

Sr. Moderator: AADD, CE&P, TD
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
33,317
When judging an action, do you value more highly the intentions behind the action, or the consequences of the action?
 
The subjectively computed consequences.

For instance : If a really naive person wants a beloved friend/relative to get rid of an ethanol addiction because they really care for them, then proceeds to captivate them, in order to prevent contact with alcoholic breweries, without knowing that a cold turkey withdrawal from it can be fatal, then their intentions might have been commendable, but the process miserable.

Another instance : There might be naive people, that have honorable ideals and intentions (hence they hate Trump), but nevertheless choose to vote for Clinton, which will have bad consequences for the whole world. That is perhaps the best indicator that the easy answer to your quiz is : The consequences !
 
Hmm, I guess it depends. Really I guess it depends on how it ends up. Someone could swerve into oncoming traffic with the intention of avoiding hitting a dog but in doing so, they unintentionally crash and cause multiple casualties. In that case I'd say the intention was not enough to make it okay. But if someone intends to do something nice for someone, but ends up making things worse, then I have to respect their intention and think that what they did was justified.
 
It depends on the situation. I can think of examples that place emphasis on either. Generally, I weigh both equally while asking, "What's really going on here?" As mere humans we are never privy to every level that's happening.

In most people's ancestry if you go back far enough, there were slaves and slave masters, at different points. I think the collective karma of these things is hard to gauge based on first-hand appearances of what's happening now. That shouldn't change our momentary reactions, just pointing out that there may be a larger drama unfolding than we realize.

As I've expounded upon in previous threads, the soul is here to learn certain things, through various trials and expiations we are here to undergo. What's happening on a mundane level, as well as our reactions and judgments of it, are all tied into that higher process.
 
I think intentions show what kind of a heart (metaphorically) the person has, and consequences show what kind of a brain (again metaphorically) the person has.

What I mean by that is the person may wish well (e.g good heart), but their predictive capabilities are sub-par and thus their course of action results in more bad than good. Like the alcohol example Ziirp provided. All in all, to outside parties, the brain component is more important, because actions not thoughts are what shape up reality, although it'd be great if the two went hand-in-hand once in a while. But then the question is: can we judge people for not being informed or intelligent enough to know what course of action to take to achieve the result they're looking for? Mental disability is not a criminal offence for obvious reasons.

Short answer is, I don't know. I guess when judging a person, I value intentions more; but also keep in mind how well they execute them, and perhaps next time interfere if at all possible.
 
Consequences. Intention is pretty close to an ideological decision. You can intend only the best outcome and mistake the consequences. Like say we wanted Iraq to be free, but we went in there and destroyed a Nation. Or a love for a child may blind you, say I sell drugs for a better life for my child but then I get arrested etc. Is this supposed to have anything to do with the master/slave dialectic of Hegel's?
 
Last edited:
^More related to the slave/master morality of Nietzsche.

I agree that is consequences- at times. There are instances where an action results in unintended consquences, such as the Holocaust galvanising western Governments into assisting with the formation of Israel. Hitler's action were not moral even though they have inadvertently had positive outcomes. Of course, that statement is not as simple as it sounds and the situation I am referring to is not simple at any level.

I think that the modern PC movement has valued intentions more than consequences. So, we are obsessively creating a fairer and more egalitatarian society with human rights and equal oppurtunities on a planet that is slowly dying. Of course, human rights are important but it could be argued that allowing the entire world to live in the affluence of western nations will have a devastating consuqence; and yet, the intent behind it of equality and freedom is hard to argue against. Yet, it is the intent that governs this, the idea that all humans are deserving of equal footing in existence that results in massive resource-strain and damage to the earth. The idea that all humans should be allowed to have children as a fundamental right means we are over-populating the planet. The consequences of our free society may be utterly dire; we may judge this period in the future as highly immoral, depending on how we play it out...
 
^ The consequences are a downstream effect from intentions. If you don't know the former then it's hard to understand the latter. Even in murder cases, the motive matters. It's the difference between manslaughter, 2nd and 1st degree murder, or the death penalty.

The problems you describe about a free society are due to things more complex than merely emphasis on one or the other. Consequences vs. intentions is a false binary. They are mutually feeding in a cyclical way, not a linear / polar-opposite way. Every reaction spurs more actions that are based on values/intentions formed by aggregate experiences. Denial and other deeply ingrained human issues are ignored and unresolved at every level. Many people don't want to believe that their good faith is causing problems, and people who are aware of the consequences are largely sweeping it under the rug out of shame or greed. I am utterly convinced at this point that it is a small group of humans causing most of the world's problems. Most of humanity would do the right thing if there were proper support, awareness and opportunity. Instead the majority remain as fodder for a minority's planned framework.

We are dealing with complex issues that have global implications but humans are only capable of processing things in a localized way. Ultimately we must each turn inward and do the inner work if our world is to survive. Collectives and systems become healthy when individuals are healthy.
 
Nice thoughts. Foreigner, your posts always have turning music down and concentrating. Good thing. I have more to add but not on iPhone.
 
swilow said:
The idea that all humans should be allowed to have children as a fundamental right means we are over-populating the planet.
Click to expand...

A bit off-topic, but that is not necessarily true. What is mainly responsible for overpopulation, is the lack of education and necessary resources in developing countries, and cultural standards other than ours. Westerners don't reproduce all that much. The population of China is almost twice that of Europe and USA combined. I believe that providing good mass education would greatly help minimize the issue.
 
The execution of the action is the most important part, why polarize?
 
No one is polarizing anything. You're begging the question. When judging the execution of an action, do you value intent or consequences higher?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top