intent, actions, and outcomes: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » intent, actions, and outcomes » intent, actions, and outcomes

intent, actions, and outcomes
Which determines moral status?

Which determines the moral status of something?
the intention		0	0%
the action	rabeldin, HalcyonGlaze	2	25%
the outcome		0	0%
the intention and the action but not the outcome	alliop, keda	2	25%
the intention and the outcome but not the action	cjwalker89	1	13%
the action and the outcome but not the intention		0	0%
some are more important than others	unenlightened	1	13%
they all have equal weight		0	0%
other	Absolutely Relative, 2gontaf2	2	25%
8 votes

Page: 1 2

intent, actions, and outcomes

alliop
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 37

Posted 04/22/08 - 05:45 PM: Subject: intent, actions, and outcomes	#1
It seems that in all my reading of ethics there seems to be one question I have not heard raised. This question seems to be essential. When we act there is ussualy an intention (what was I aiming to do?), an action (What means did I use in an attempt to fullfill my intentions?), and an outcome (What was the actual result?). Does only one of these deal with whether or not something is ethical? If so which one? If not then is one of them more important than the other in deterniming the moral status of something or do they all have equal weight? If they do not have equal weight then which is the most important? Why do you think so? Is there more to this? Is there a fourth, fifth, or even sixth component? If so what are they and why do you think such? I think the intention and the actions taken are the two that determine whether or not something is ethical. If a man runs into a burning biulding and intends to save a child but most, if not all, would say he was being a moral person regardless of whether or not he was actually able to save the child.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1429

Posted 04/23/08 - 01:20 AM:	#2
True, but there other scenarios where the outcome does seem relevant to the moral evaluation of actions or actors. Suppose some fire-fighters are already in the building and they spend crucial seconds persuading him to leave. As a result they fail to rescue the child. Then he was a reckless busybody, not a hero. Or a bit of both. But perhaps not a hero without qualification, although his intention and his actions were the same as in your scenario.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 2492

Posted 04/23/08 - 02:07 AM:	#3
Still, it would not make any moral difference if they succeed to rescue the child, despite his disturbing the operation, would it? Now suppose the person does actually think these firemen can handle it without problem, and understood he would only disturb the operation rather than help, then we find not fault in the outcome, but rather if we are to suspect any fault, it would be in his insistence and intention to disturb the operation.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Caldwell
Curator of whirligigs

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1424

Posted 04/23/08 - 02:49 AM:	#4
I think, altruistic actions such as those saving a person drowning, or going into a burning building to save a person, are used as evaluations of selfless acts, a test of whether we only act if it's a benefit to oneself, or we also act even if it harms us in the process because we are innately moral human beings. There are other tests of ethical actions, such as policy-making, governing, a doctor making a decision, the rich sharing the wealth with the poor, etc. where deliberation takes place before acting. Here, intention is clearly defined, and outcome comes only second as an ethical issue. That is, we make room for mistakes in decision, and we do not call the action immoral if the outcome ended up harmful, depending on the severity of the mistake, because we allow the future to be uncertain. Usually, decisions like above are made for long term effects, and even if it's only for short-term, we tend to allow that uncertainty. So, in this kind of actions, outcome seems to be less of a moral or ethical issue than it is a reflection of unforeseen factors. Perhaps, someone could think of an example of this type of decision and action in which failure is judged immoral. Because I can't think of one right now.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5415

Posted 04/23/08 - 05:08 AM:	#5
Only the action is objective. Everything else is "in the eye of the beholder". An evaluation of the situation must recognize that different people may evaluate the action differently. That means that our evaluations are essentially subjective. There is no need to seek for any "God's eye" evaluation, it cannot exist rationally without a universal subordination to "God's will".
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 167

Posted 04/23/08 - 07:08 AM:	#6
What about the outcome of previous, similar, actions. If your intent is to save a cat by chopping down a tree (assume that cat has greater good than tree), you succeed in cutting down the tree, and the cat is killed by the falling tree. Your intention and action would be good but the outcome bad. The intention was moral and the action was moral; you behaved morally in the presence of the distressed cat. You come across another cat in another tree. You successfully cut down this tree and unfortunately kill the cat. Intention and action were good; was your action in the presence of this cat as moral as the first?
It is what it is.

unenlightened
The Artistic Donkey

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1197

Posted 04/24/08 - 05:47 AM:	#7
alliop wrote: If they do not have equal weight then which is the most important? Why do you think so? Is there more to this? Is there a fourth, fifth, or even sixth component? If so what are they and why do you think such? Intent is the most important. Volcanos and tigers are not immoral because they have no malicious intent. but if your intent is 'good' but your action is reckless for example, then the action, or perhaps the thoughtlessness of it may make it immoral. The outcome seems almost irrelevant in a single case, although outcomes are what guide moral rules in general perhaps. I would add a fourth - circumstances. What might be moral on a lifeboat adrift, could be immoral in a hospital, or sitting in front of the telly.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/01/08 - 12:07 AM:	#8
Does only one of these deal with whether or not something is ethical? If so which one? If not then is one of them more important than the other in deterniming the moral status of something or do they all have equal weight? If they do not have equal weight then which is the most important? Why do you think so? It seems clear to me that only Action is important, for Action is the only thing that not only has physical presense, but is the only thing you're actually doing. Ethics is basically the study of what is Right to do, in terms of human interaction (as far as I see it anyway), and thus, anything that is not actually done seems irrelevent. I can not "intend" to somebody else. It is impossible for me to walk up to somebody, and intend at them. Or intend to them. Or intend them. On the other hand, I can hit them with the intention of self defense, but that action has a physical presense to it, a physical presense of Self Defense. I also don't do consequences. My actions posess them, but I myself as a person don't seem to. Consequences are not a thing I can do to other people. Thus, they seem equally irrelevant.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1429

Posted 05/01/08 - 12:56 AM:	#9
HalcyonGlaze wrote: It seems clear to me that only Action is important, for Action is the only thing that not only has physical presense, but is the only thing you're actually doing. Ethics is basically the study of what is Right to do, in terms of human interaction (as far as I see it anyway), and thus, anything that is not actually done seems irrelevent. I can not "intend" to somebody else. It is impossible for me to walk up to somebody, and intend at them. Or intend to them. Or intend them. On the other hand, I can hit them with the intention of self defense, but that action has a physical presense to it, a physical presense of Self Defense. I also don't do consequences. My actions posess them, but I myself as a person don't seem to. Consequences are not a thing I can do to other people. Thus, they seem equally irrelevant. If intention made no difference to the way we evaluate an action, then amputating an arm in order to save someone's life would be evaluated the same as lopping off an arm for fun. Do you know anyone who would evaluate the action of cutting an arm off the same way for both scenarios, regardless of intention? If so, perhaps they are being a bit too harsh on surgeons - or a bit too tolerant of amputators-for-fun. If I personally cut someone's arm off in order to save their life, I'd probably end up deserving a good deal of blame. I'm not a trained surgeon and I'd probably kill them or harm them irreparably, unless I was very lucky. I should have driven them to hospital instead. So intention isn't everything: consequences are important too.

klorius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 95

Posted 05/01/08 - 04:57 AM:	#10
With regards to the OP, just two points: 1. This is hardly a question that is not raised; indeed, it's probably one of the central questions of normative ethics in general. Any ethics text that is looking at the general picture will at the very least distinguish between intentions and consequences (with actions usually grouped together with intentions). 2. One rather prominent category that seems to have been left out is character, which is the central component of virtue ethics. Broadly speaking, this focuses on the general character of the moral agent, rather than his specific intentions in a particular act, or the consequences of that particular event.
To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand. - Jose Ortega y Gasset Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Zi

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5415

Posted 05/01/08 - 05:10 AM:	#11
Cuthbert wrote: If intention made no difference to the way we evaluate an action, then amputating an arm in order to save someone's life would be evaluated the same as lopping off an arm for fun. Do you know anyone who would evaluate the action of cutting an arm off the same way for both scenarios, regardless of intention? If so, perhaps they are being a bit too harsh on surgeons - or a bit too tolerant of amputators-for-fun. If I personally cut someone's arm off in order to save their life, I'd probably end up deserving a good deal of blame. I'm not a trained surgeon and I'd probably kill them or harm them irreparably, unless I was very lucky. I should have driven them to hospital instead. So intention isn't everything: consequences are important too. Allowing a set of circumstances to develop that demands amputation certainly doesn't deserve applause. When a diabetic refuses to follow the doctor's instructions, thus allowing the gangrene to develop, he contributes to his own illness. The amputation is just "Evolution in action".
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/01/08 - 10:50 AM:	#12
If intention made no difference to the way we evaluate an action, then amputating an arm in order to save someone's life would be evaluated the same as lopping off an arm for fun. Do you know anyone who would evaluate the action of cutting an arm off the same way for both scenarios, regardless of intention? If so, perhaps they are being a bit too harsh on surgeons - or a bit too tolerant of amputators-for-fun. I disagree, as lopping off an arm to save someone's life is a different action than doing it for fun. But also, I'd say that neither are inherently wrong, and both require more data before one is able to determine if the action is incorrect or not. Take for example, the possibility that I don't want my life saved. The doctor shows up, ready to save my life. I tell him I don't want him to do it, I want to die. If he amputates my arm to save my life anyway, this action is Wrong. For the action was done in a state of Wrongness. What I mean is, the action was performed in a different physical state (said state being determined by past physical actions) than if I had concented, and is thus a seperate action from for instance, doing it with my consent. On the other hand, if I consent to having my arm lopped off by somebody who wishes to do it for fun, it is an okay thing. Nothing Wrong has been done at that point, for the removal of my arm was done in a physical state that allowed for the action, due to my prior consent. What my point is, is that there really is a difference between your two actions, and that determining what actions are Wrong or not, one must also look at the past to see what sort of state the actions were done in. The "same" actions done in different states are different actions.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 2492

Posted 05/01/08 - 12:06 PM:	#13
Evidently intention plays a role as well. Someone can be helping the poor for the sake of gaining praise - it would have no moral value.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1429

Posted 05/01/08 - 10:59 PM:	#14
HalcyonGlaze wrote: I disagree, as lopping off an arm to save someone's life is a different action than doing it for fun. But also, I'd say that neither are inherently wrong, and both require more data before one is able to determine if the action is incorrect or not. It's different, because the intention is different. On the one hand "...in order to save someone's life", and on the other, "... to have fun." But the physical action is the same: arm amputation. So it's not only the physical action that's important in moral evaluation. I think you're saying 'only the action counts' and then including the intention in the description of the action. That's an arguable position as well, as long as it's clear what you're doing. I think your point about arm amputation for fun with consent deserves a thread of its own. Personally I'd say that we shouldn't chop people's limbs off for reasons other than saving life, even if they want to have them chopped off. But it's debatable either way. Your point about the duties of a doctor towards dying people who don't want their lives saved deserves a book of its own, not just a thread. Keda: I'm not sure that helping the poor for the sake of praise would have exactly no moral value. The poor get helped and that's [assumed in the example for the sake of argument to be] a good thing. Then it's good to make good things happen. It may just not make you a good person to do things that happen to be good: it depends partly why you do them. I'd say consequences matter, even if they don't matter greatly for agent-evaluation.

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/01/08 - 11:27 PM:	#15
It's different, because the intention is different. On the one hand "...in order to save someone's life", and on the other, "... to have fun." But the physical action is the same: arm amputation. So it's not only the physical action that's important in moral evaluation. The physical actions are different. There is no way you can just amputate an arm. There's always something else going on, and this someting is always relevant. No two arm amputations are actually the same actions. I think you're saying 'only the action counts' and then including the intention in the description of the action. That's an arguable position as well, as long as it's clear what you're doing. This is indeed how some people see this, but I'd disagree with the outlook. I suppose, if you really want to see it that way, I'm simply giving something that most call "intent" a physical impression, but I see it as different states of being that defines the action. It's not really intent. For if there was some machine that could 100% accurately discern the true intent an individual had while performing an action, I'd say that it'd be completely irrelevant to the state the action was done in, and be mostly useless information. The only thing that counts is what is physical, and intent is not physical. I think your point about arm amputation for fun with consent deserves a thread of its own. Then please do make one, and I'll gladly post in it. Your point about the duties of a doctor towards dying people who don't want their lives saved deserves a book of its own, not just a thread. Well, maybe one day You'll come across a possible future book I may write about that then? Although, you wouldn't know it was me if you ever did....It's not like I'd put "HalcyonGlaze" over the cover or anything. :P

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1429

Posted 05/01/08 - 11:43 PM:	#16
HalcyonG: You say the only thing that counts (morally) is what is physical. And you also say that what most people call intention is physical. If you're right about that, then what most call intention can count morally. Therefore both actions and (what most call) intentions can count morally. If what most people call intention is, as you say, not really intention, and if real intention is not relevant to moral evaluation, then perhaps you could explain what this 'real intention' is supposed to be. But I think you're saying that both action and intention are physical and that both count morally. You might be right. I'd say you're certainly right about the second one, which is the topic of the thread.

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/01/08 - 11:58 PM:	#17
You say the only thing that counts (morally) is what is physical. And you also say that what most people call intention is physical. If you're right about that, then what most call intention can count morally. Therefore both actions and (what most call) intentions can count morally. As I said, what is physical is not really intent. Intent is not physical. I said this. I outright said that you have to really want to see what I said that way(a physical impression to intent), but I myself don't agree with that view. It's just something some other people whom I've spoken with have taken my views to mean. Therefore, intention does not count morally, as it's not physical. If what most people call intention is, as you say, not really intention, and if real intention is not relevant to moral evaluation, then perhaps you could explain what this 'real intention' is supposed to be. Real Intention is just what most people call intention. What I want to accomplish with my action. It's not a physical thing. But I think you're saying that both action and intention are physical and that both count morally. You might be right. I'd say you're certainly right about the second one, which is the topic of the thread. See, this isn't what I'm saying personally, I only aknowledge that a lot of people view it as what I'm saying. But I'm not. All that matters is the action. But actions have what I call "States of Being" that determine their status as Just or Unjust, Unjust things being Wrong, and Just things being anything that's not Wrong. I asser that a "State of Being" is not just saying that an "Intent is Physical" or has a physical presence at all.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1429

Posted 05/02/08 - 12:11 AM:	#18
OK, then let's suppose intention is not physical. Then, if I amputate an arm in order to [phrase expresses intention] save a life, it's the same physical act as if I amputate an arm in order to [phrase expresses intention again] have fun. It's the same physical act because only the intention differs and we are now supposing that intention is not physical. So the physical act is the same. But the moral evaluation is of course different. So intention matters in moral evaluation. Which is just where we came in.

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/02/08 - 12:25 AM:	#19
OK, then let's suppose intention is not physical. Then, if I amputate an arm in order to [phrase expresses intention] save a life, it's the same physical act as if I amputate an arm in order to [phrase expresses intention again] have fun. It's the same physical act because only the intention differs and we are now supposing that intention is not physical. So the physical act is the same. But the moral evaluation is of course different. So intention matters in moral evaluation. Which is just where we came in. No. The physical acts are different. But ignoring that, I once again assert that both of these situations are ammoral and require additional data to determine if the action is Wrong or not. The State of Being should help us here, and the easiest way to tell is if there was consent given prior to the action. If not, one has to look at the previous actions and physical states (as in, what sort of state the body is in) of the people in question to determine the Wrongness of the act, but it gets very very murky (in that it'd be extremely hard to be 100% sure of the state when performing the action) without consent.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1429

Posted 05/02/08 - 12:40 AM:	#20
OK, then the physical acts are different. The scenario is that the two acts differ only in intention ("...in order to save life" vs "...in order to have fun"). If two acts differ only in intention, and they also differ physically, then intention is physical. Alternatively, intention isn't physical. The two acts differ only in intention. Therefore the two acts don't differ physically. Take your pick! You might be right that it's impossible to tell whether amputating someone's arm to save their life is morally better or worse than lopping it off for fun. But I'm not sure it's as difficult as you make out. Of course there may be some bizarre circumstances in which the usual evaluation would not hold. But let's assume that those circumstances don't pertain. Then the judgement is fairly easy.

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/02/08 - 12:46 AM:	#21
False dichotomy. They differ completely. I'm sure the people are not the same. I'm sure the people's pasts are not the same. I'm sure that the tools used for the amputation are not the same. I'm sure that their heartbeats are not the same, that their pupils are not dialated the same way, that the same hormones are not running through them the same way. Etc etc. They actions are not very similar at all in fact. But nevertheless, the Justness of the actions are difficult to discern from these things. If you want to have these actions be "the same" in a Hypothetical sense...okay, they're the same. They therefore have the same moral standing. They are both Ammoral. There is not enough data and there can't possibly be enough data because of how you represent them to me if you mean this in a hypothetical sense in which they are indeed, the same.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1429

Posted 05/02/08 - 01:06 AM:	#22
OK, then in the scenario the physical acts are the same and only the intention differs and they are both amoral acts. In that case, amputating someone's arm to save their life is morally indifferent, and amputating it for fun is also morally indifferent. As I said, someone who believes that is perhaps being somewhat harsh towards surgeons, or somewhat lenient towards sadists. My opinion, of course, but if my opinion is sound, then it seems the intention can count in the moral evaluation of an action.

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/02/08 - 10:36 AM:	#23
Like I said, there are situations in which Surgeons could opperate Wrongfully, and sadists could lob off arms Rightfully. They are neither inherently one way or the other. You need more data.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1429

Posted 05/05/08 - 11:33 PM:	#24
Yes, that's also true. But that is not an argument why intention does not matter in moral evaluation. It is an argument why an action that can be right in one set of circumstances can be wrong in another set. And of course it can true both that the rightness of an action varies according with the circumstances in which it is done and also true that intention matters in the evaluation of acts and agents.

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/06/08 - 03:52 PM:	#25
Yes, that's also true. But that is not an argument why intention does not matter in moral evaluation. Rather, it is to show that your example actions are bad. You chose those two, undoubtedly, because you thought they were the "same" actions with different "intentions" which have different moral outcomes. You neglected the idea that I could believe neither action has those set-in-stone outcomes you were trying to show. And of course it can true both that the rightness of an action varies according with the circumstances in which it is done and also true that intention matters in the evaluation of acts and agents. Sure, hypothetically, it COULD be true. But I don't see a reason why they both would be. I see reasons only for the former being true, and absolutely nothing for the latter. Although, I'd have to clarrify that those "circumstances" actually make the "Action" a different physical action. Hence no two actions are really the same.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.