These are philosophical questions which experienced a great deal of discussion during the scientific revolution, a time when the old ideologies of God and Church were called into question by new knowledge. So here it is?

The questions concern when is an action right or wrong?

According to your belief system (if its a mainstream religious belief feel free to use scriptures but please give interpretation as you answer the quetions)

Is it only the action that is judged regardless of outcome?
What of inaction, good or bad? Or does it depend on the outcome?

What of intention? Is it only the intention that is judged regardless of outcome?

Let the fun begin. Thanks in advance for all those who choose to brave this topic and add honest discussion to the thread.

Hi Di, always nice to read your posts.



Well, my "belief system" is ultimately "Be true to thy self", from a religious or spiritual aspect, I think of my "self" as being my deepest spiritual essence (or 'god' if you like).

As far as various religious traditions go, I could 'quote' scriptures from many different sages from Buddha to Jesus, that would support my ultimately conclusions. However, I see no purpose in bothering with that. Usually when I quote Jesus that just causes other people to dredge up yet other quotes from within the same text that appear to contradict the scriptures that I quote. So I've found that quoting scriptures almost always just leads to arguments over what "God" supposedly demands from us.

So what's the point in going there?

Having said the above I'll try to address your question the way I see them.


Is it only the action that is judged regardless of outcome?


Actions that have no intent are meaningless and therefore beyond judgment, IMHO, no matter whose doing the judging. For what could such an action be other than an instinctual reaction? How can an instinctual reaction be "judged"? Unless were going to move to a higher level and "judge" the designer of instincts, assuming such a designer exists.


What of inaction, good or bad? Or does it depend on the outcome?


I often judge myself quite harshly based on inactions. In fact, inaction is probably my greatest source of "guilt" where "guilt" in this sense is simply the recognition that I have no been true to myself. For I am the one who judges.


What of intention? Is it only the intention that is judged regardless of outcome?


If I were to judge myself based on intentions alone I would necessarily need to judge myself to be among the greatest saints who ever lived. Because my intentions are always true to myself. I'm never "tempted" to do things that are untrue to my true self. In that sense, I am always in harmony with the "Diving Will of God".

Except in the cases of "Inaction".

Inaction is my greatest failing. It would require a book to explain why this is the case. Often times it's simply fear of acting. Shyness, fear that my actions might lead to negative results even though I had good intentions.

In fact, I have had quite many experiences throughout my life where actions that have been based on entirely good intentions produced seriously negative and hurtful results for everyone involved including me. So good intentions does not guarantee a good outcome at all.

Perhaps those horrible and hurtful experiences of attempting to act on good intentions that have ultimately lead to extremely bad experiences has indeed been what has lead me to become extremely 'inactive'.

I've become a social introvert and hermit, avoiding all interaction as much as possible. Simple because "Good Intentions" in no way guarantee "Good Results" and in my experience they often produce the precisely opposite.

Thus I've found "inaction" to be a safe haven.

But at the same time I confess that I feel "guilty" about living a life of "inaction" because in a very real sense it's the same as turning my back on life altogether and refusing to participate in it.

Ironically though, many religious traditions view this as the highest form of spirituality. This is want Celibate Monks, and Nuns do. They vow to not participate in the normal activities and relationships of life and become basically socially inactive in terms of personal relationship.

So I supposed in that sense I shouldn't feel 'guilty' about inaction, but at the same time I do. I feel that I'm violating the true desire of my deepest self which is indeed to participate in life in a normal and healthy way.

I feel that life is ultimately meant to be enjoyed and to refrain from enjoying it out of fear of doing "accidental damage" is a truly sad thing. Unfortunately it seems that every time I try to interact in a social way people get hurt, including myself, and that was never my intent yet it seems to be an unavoidable result of any action regardless of intent.

If intent was the determining factor in life, my life on Earth would have been nirvana to be sure. Let there be no question about that.

Unfortunately intent doesn't seem to play a major role in terms of outcome. At least not in my experiences.

First of all let me say that is mighty white of you to let us use the scriptures.

Genesis 30:35 And he removed that day the he goats that were ring-streaked and spotted, and all the she goats that were speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the brown among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.

I am trying to be brave honestly.

Would you like the scripture first or the interpretation?

I doubt that it matters.

Is it the action that is judged regardless of outcome?

Hmm. I have screwed up before and it came out okay, anyways. Like I was dealing with this person and I thought she was possessed but it was just the dementia. After she had her meds she was okay.

For us action can be abuse and inaction can be neglect. So we have to watch what we do and what we don't do. If you take the verse - He that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him is a sin - Then you better be sure you know what good is.

Case in point. I was told not to cut the fingernails or toenails of diabetics. And I didn't. I gave her the clippers. So I spent a hour with a ice bag trying to stop the flow of blood. I was lucky and she was okay. To make up for it I gave her a bagel like she asked. I thought what a nice guy I am. Then I found out she wasn't supposed to have wheat products. Sometimes its best to quit while you are ahead. The outcome was I learned to read up on people. I had the best intentions. But as you know the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I mean what else would you pave hell with. Asphalt and concrete couldn't take the temperature. I am all for the fun. Hope you had some fun reading my input.

I enjoyed your post very much Roy! Thanks for posting it.

You made me pee my pants!

Like you say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

That's probably the truest statement ever as ironic as it is.

At least you've made me realize that I'm not the only one who screws everything up with good intentions.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences.

You are welcome, James. We got so many state rules that they are as contradictory as the Bible can be. My Atheist friend and me agree on damn if you do and damned if you don't. Sometimes we are scared to do anything. We have both been sent to the front office many times. But it is like Ghosts Busters with our shortage of people. So who you going to call?

I know what you mean. I've known a lot of health care workers who have gotten into some serious trouble just from trying to help people. It can be a tricky business.

And the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" can apply to many facets of life. And the real irony is that if you become an introverted hermit like me then people accuse you of shirking your responsibilities in life.

The only way you can shirk responsibility with any respect is to become a full-fledged monk. Then everyone looks up to you as having chosen the ultimate spiritual path.

What a crazy mixed-up world we live in.

Have a purpose in life; Be a bad example. That is what was told to me once. Actually that can help. I can remember being asked by my dad after saying that this childhood friend named Thomas did something bad and it was okay: "If Thomas jumped off a bridge would you jump off, too?" Dad had a point.

At least the road to hell is paved, now when I go, I won't have to worry about road conditions.

Just watch out for those well-intended pot holes.

Thanks for your thoughts:



I agree with you – so if an action is a thoughtless one and what comes of it is bad – are you to blame? Likewise, it the thoughtless action has a good outcome should you be proud of yourself?

It’s a two question actually, I didn’t make it too clear but you did an exemplary job of responding anyway.




I feel the same way, a bad outcomes from good intensions is something I can honestly attempt to make it right – it is the bad outcome from inaction which is the most difficult to correct and to explain.

EX: Some of the worst crimes have been witnessed by many – like rape or even murder. Many such cases in cities where there are high apartment buildings and people look out their window when they hear screaming. One such case involved a woman who was being stabbed, she kept screaming and fighting and getting away, only to be caught and stabbed some more, finally she made it into an apartment building but her attacker finished her on the stairs. It was an about 20 minutes before someone in the apartment near next the stairs who called the police. No less that 48 witnesses were eventually found and they all talked. When asked why they did not call the police or why they did not help this woman – the answers were almost all the same “none of my business”, “I saw others looking out their window, I thought someone would have called”, and “I didn’t want to get involved.”

The woman had two children and was on her way home from work – inaction, it can be difficult to excuse it.





“To thine ownself, be true” Plato, I believe. And again I agree with you, in as much as intention alone would make most people seem like saints – by their own judgment, of course.

Of course everyone thinks they are acting with good intentions but when the actions cause harm, how can a person prove they meant no harm?

OR
in some cases – good intentioned people cause harm by their actions but try to claim it was not their action that is to blame but the action of the person harmed that created the bad outcome.

EX: A person sets their briefcase down, say in an airport, and while talking with a friend steps away a couple feet away from it. Another person trips over it and breaks a bone. It’s amazing how many people actually feel excused for leaving the briefcase in the middle of walk way and loudly proclaim the stupidity of the person who tripped over it – and they even check to see if their briefcase was harmed…..

Not sure what that means – but I have enjoyed your post.



I can see why you would apply this to yourself in the situation you are in – but don’t you think this is always true?

Is it our responsibility to think of all the possible implications before we act?

Are there times when a ‘REaction’ excuses us of any harm related to it?

For those who believe in sin – is there guilt (of sin) assigned to action when the intention was good?

For those who believe in forgiveness – are consequences of all actions equal in forgiveness.
In other words

Does it matter if the intention is good but was not completely thought out, or the intention is bad, but in both cases lead to a bad outcome – should the consequences (punishment) be exactly the same?

"He who hesitates is lost".

If we analyze everything to death before we act, we miss the moment.

In fact, this is quite often the very reason I miss a lot of opportunities to act. I hesitate, and by the time I decide whether or not I should act, the opportunity to do so has passed.

Kind of like in your example of the woman being pursued by a murderer. She's running and screaming for help, and you think to yourself, "Should I do something to try to help or not?".


BOOM!


Oh well, too late now.

Hey Di!

I take it that your thinking about morality again?



That assessment all depends upon the baseline from which it(the action) is being compared to/against. 'Right and wrong' are necessarily personal moral conclusions regarding a specific action/thought. They are, most often, based upon a subjective personal value assessment and in that there is no absolute universally applicable and objectively demonstrable answer which amounts to either one. As David Hume so irrefutably put it(paraphrasing here)...

No ought follows from an *is* without necessarily presupposing another ought. No matter how conclusively one can prove or show what *is*, one cannot prove why it ought to be that way rather than another. Thus, an utterance of ought has no empirically substantive ground.



Consequences are judged as well, in that those are what one is usually being held accountable for.



This, and the rest of these questions are entirely subjective in that one could come up with completely different scenarios(reasoning) which would justify either 'side'. The problem is inherent in the language being used. All positive assertions, and that includes "That is 'good'", "That is 'bad'", or even "The cat is black" necessarily presuppose truth in that the speaker believes that the statement(s) accurately correspond to reality.



Intention is the most interesting aspect here, and perhaps also the most misunderstood. I would definitely disagree with the claim that the 'road to hell is paved with good intentions'. I mean, the antimony would then be that the road to heaven is paved with bad ones? Does not sound very logical to me.

Intention is the measure of morality. All one can forsee as being a possible result from their action(s) is all that can be expected from that person. If, based upon that which a person forsees as possible or probable consequences for an action, the person takes action with best intentions, then the reasons for taking the action cannot possibly be considered as 'wrong' or 'bad', because the measure of one's taking an action is had by examination of the intent.

The consequences, should they be 'bad' would then, necessarily not have been envisioned as what would come of the action. Unwanted consequences happen to those who take action based upon less than enough information or knowledge concerning the causal relationship in question. Unwanted results coming from those with good intentions are a result from naivety regarding unforeseen possibility.




The labels 'good/bad and 'right/wrong' are conclusory and reflections of one's personal 'sense' of ought.

The mighty white of you is something I have been dealing with since childhood. It was the socialization process that I was raised into with regards to religion and how it can be different than philosophy.

Colossians 2:8

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

But then there is story of the good Samaritan that Jesus himself gives.

At some points in time I have had to step out of what I was taught and what I believe to be true and try to answer a question without the crutch of the scriptures. For some people they don't have to deal with this crutch and can walk well without it in their path. For some the crutch of the scriptures can actually be a hindrance and it can slow them down. It is like am I talking to you or something that you have read. I noticed this while walking in my field of endeavor which is care giving.

Case in point.

My Nursing Home doesn't let us use restraints unless it is signed and prescribed by a doctor's order. My supervisor in trying to understand this at the time and try to help me understand it at the time told me the resident has the right to fall down. Of course, that means to the nurse that it has to be documented. A CNA is not allowed to touch them until a Nurse has determined that they aren't injured and can be lifted while she is lifted. Otherwise the CNA is liable and not the Nurse. This is to protect the Nursing Home that tells me the the resident comes first. Because the state is the ultimate authority and I must accept that the state must be the ultimate caregiver because their rules determine what is care giving and how it should be given. I think that is mighty white of them. I find the state rules to be so impersonal but I have to abide by them or I am liable. As you can see that has affected my religion or what I have processed to be true and my philosophy and what I have processed to be true. I have had to trade a Bible for CNA handbook at work. I am working my way through the contradictions. Philosophy has helped me.

The statement below is false.
The statement above is true.

I guess it all depends or not if I am liable or not according to the state rules. But sometimes I do what I think is best irregardless of what the state rules are. Because in the moment as James says is what we live in. Sometimes we have to make that judgment call. Sometimes there is no one but us to help someone. Do we let them take the fall or do we rush in where angels fear to tread.

for me, an action is right or wrong when it intentionally or knowingly diminishes a spirit or harms the flesh

ex. If I feed someone strawberries and they choke to death from allergic reaction, I would be wrong if I knew of the allergy and INTENDED to cause that reaction,,,I would not be wrong if I had no knowledge of that being a possible outcome

I dont think action can be judged without also looking at outcome, because we act to manipulate a specific desired outcome

ex. if I know someone shot someone else, I may have a different reaction if that action resulted in the immediate safety of someone in danger(like a child being seriously harmed by the person who got shot),,, than if it resulted in a child being left motherless(like a woman being shot in front of her child in a robbery)

I think inaction is neither good nor bad, regardless of outcome, although it may be cowardly

ex. As awful as it seems, I dont think someone who watched someone else be harmed would be WRONG if they did nothing, I do think they are cowardly though

I think intention is judged by God(regardless of outcome) but that man cant truly know another mans intentions


I think men tend to assume intentions based upon outcome and judge both

Wow. Quite profound. Human's being placed in situations where even angels fear to tread.

Bringing divinity down to Earth.

The human saga makes religious mythologies seem trivial doesn't it?

I have Diane to thank for that. She wrote one time about practical applications. It reminded me of going to school and we were learning new words. The teacher would have us to use a new word in a sentence to see if we really knew what it meant. I think good teachers can be divine because they have children to teach and children can be unruly or challenging. Or how about a professor who has students to teach who are adults but who can become even more unruly and more challenging. Or the school bus driver who after the school has given the children through teachers soda pop and candy is given these screaming kids a ride after a pep rally a ride to the football game. And these kids are all pumped up from the coach and full of school team spirit. And the poor bus driver is trying to keep the children safe; Watch the road since he/she is driving this bus and is totally liable for the children by the school until the children are all off the bus. I think that would be scary for some angels.

I understand what you’re saying. I’m a very cautions person, and sometimes I’m not sure if someone needs help or if it’s some kind of ‘normal’ activity between people who know each other. Like you said, when we hesitate we may loose an opportunity. Several years ago some events took place that make me question my own hesitations, after some thorough self assessment and some retraining, I’ve learned how to intercede in various ways, it may be a seemingly ‘innocent’ as I assess the response to my presence, or I may simply approach someone and say “are you ok?” I think only once was I told “this is none of your business, get the $%($ outta here.” OK fine with me.

STILL – I think there are times when inaction occurs because the person is torn by a conflict of beliefs as the following suggests.



There can be a huge difference between a philosophy, such as human ethics, and a religious belief.

Very good point made in RainbowTrout’s post – thanks.

Yes, it’s a topic that seems to be dominating my life right now. How we were raised to act, vs. what is in our power to do -- How much do I need vs. how much do I have -- What time is for me vs. who needs my time, and it goes on.
SO VERY GLAD you joined the discussion – hope you and the boys are well.
Back to the topic:

The questions concern when is an action right or wrong?


I was waiting for this – what is a sense of ought? It develops in different ways doesn’t it? We begin our journey into ‘ought’ as children and it develops as we experience religion, and through personal growth and philosophy.


Yes – but how do we prevent jumping to conclusions and acting on those conclusions that can cause further harm to others or to ourselves? We don’t – which is why all societies have civil law. Which brings up the dilemma which Hume, Kant and others faced when the religious law or the laws based on religious morals where challenged by new knowledge gained during the scientific revolution.


The concept of civil LAW is actually a reflection of reality but we all know that reality exists as an emergent process. This was not only difficult for 17th/18th century people but it was also a threat to the status quo. Changing laws to reflect current reality often meant removing religious traditional morals from law, as more people began to question currently held religious values and adjust them to more accurately reflect current philosophy.
Back to the next question:
What of intention? Is it only the intention that is judged regardless of outcome?


Indeed and this is why we accept civil Law, because we expect that those who created it, did so from the strongest measure of morality reflected in human ethics and thus expected to hold true for a long time. Correct? (speaking of the free world, or course)



Yes - another way of looking at it is what I just posted. We are right, and moral, and legal and in civil accord until some new emergent quality within society renders the law less than moral. Correct?



Yes, and when a personal ‘sense’ of ought renders the person inflexible to change, any action which stems from that moral measure of ‘ought’ is more likely to have negative effects on members of society. Correct?

Those negative effects then become a component of the judgment process – because the inaction of correcting or adjusting a personal perspective is behind the intention. We tend to call this kind of inflexible perspective fundamentalism. If it was fundamentally right and moral when I leaned it, it must remain so.

So Creative, am I effectively staying within the framework of the philosophy of “ought” “sense of duty” and “intention” in my comparisons? I trust you will correct my errors in logic here.

What does everyone else think? Have I exceeded the boundaries of personal ideology by making civil law an entity of its own right?