Intending

[ulyssesSgrant]

Good Samaritan: When I saw how things were going I was compelled to step in and try to make things better. It was just the right thing to do; it was a good act.
Participant in the disaster: When you came along I didn't want you to know that the disaster was going exactly as I planned. I claimed it wasn't my intention and apparently you bought it; it was a good act.

Tell your friend.

Ah yes, the "good acts" double entendre. It all makes sense now.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Good Samaritan: When I saw how things were going I was compelled to step in and try to make things better. It was just the right thing to do; it was a good act.
Participant in the disaster: When you came along I didn't want you to know that the disaster was going exactly as I planned. I claimed it wasn't my intention and apparently you bought it; it was a good act.

Tell your friend.

Win-win for all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ah yes, the "good acts" double entendre. It all makes sense now.

I knew your friend would catch right on.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

I knew your friend would catch right on.

My friend suspected it had something to do with the word acts, but just couldn't put it all together. You'll have to forgive him, he is kind of an idiot.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

My friend suspected it had something to do with the word acts, but just couldn't put it all together. You'll have to forgive him, he is kind of an idiot.

Well, your looking out for him is a very good act on your part.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Fair enough. This does seem to fall once again into the overflowing bin of evidence for "outcomes matter, intentions are irrelevant."

I still wouldn't call intention irrelevant. Assuming a rational/sane person, intention is an imperfect predictor of future outcomes, but is still significantly better than nothing.

There's a supportable theory that the outcome is always what was actually intended, people are just dishonest about what they intend.

I'm not sure I'd buy that one. Ignorance of facts makes intention based on those facts questionable (either the person knew them or didn't). If the person wasn't even aware of this lack of knowledge, it's hard to make a case that there was an intention for an outcome that was beyond the person's capability to anticipate.

Depending on the nature of the ignorance that doesn't mean the person shouldn't be held responsible, but it does suggest that there's more to this than flat dishonesty.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not sure I'd buy that one. Ignorance of facts makes intention based on those facts questionable (either the person knew them or didn't). If the person wasn't even aware of this lack of knowledge, it's hard to make a case that there was an intention for an outcome that was beyond the person's capability to anticipate.

Depending on the nature of the ignorance that doesn't mean the person shouldn't be held responsible, but it does suggest that there's more to this than flat dishonesty.

The point behind that theory is that given the lack of actual understanding of causation the link from intention to result may not be obvious before or after the fact, but that still can leave result as directly representing the actual intention.

Consider the example that people would rather be right about thinking they are a "loser" than be successful, and the result aligning with their actual intention is what prevents their success. The desire to be "proven right" is immensely powerful.

 

[El_Machinae]

I believe in iterative wisdom. It is very easy to make a mistake with good intent, but it is hard to consistently improve without good intention

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The point behind that theory is that given the lack of actual understanding of causation the link from intention to result may not be obvious before or after the fact, but that still can leave result as directly representing the actual intention.

Consider the example that people would rather be right about thinking they are a "loser" than be successful, and the result aligning with their actual intention is what prevents their success. The desire to be "proven right" is immensely powerful.

In your described scenario, how can you be "proven right" without a known prior intention?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In your described scenario, how can you be "proven right" without a known prior intention?

That's the whole point of being dishonest about your intentions...with yourself. Talk to people who aren't successful. Most of them are chock full of well constructed arguments as to how they "can't be." They would never say that their intention is to fail, but in the face of such good arguments you can hardly doubt that they will. And as you explore their state you will find that they get tremendous payoffs out of their failure, and that a large part of that payoff is the satisfaction they take in their carefully constructed arguments "proving out."

On the flip side, as I said, I had an intention to retire at 45. 25 years later, despite the path frequently wandering far afield through twists and turns that I never expected I was 45 and I retired. I had long since given up even trying to steer the path, but I never let that intention waver, and the outcome resulted. Recently I committed to a mid six figures investment, despite not having the money available and having no particularly solid idea where it was going to come from. My partner in this enterprise committed to a ridiculously ambitious delivery schedule. So far, once again despite the path taking an enormous amount of unexpected twists and turns, neither of us have missed a deadline, and we're about halfway through the project.

Intention causes outcome, process is what's unpredictable. But most people are not clear about what their intention really is until the outcome has punched them in the gut.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Intention causes outcome, process is what's unpredictable. But most people are not clear about what their intention really is until the outcome has punched them in the gut.

I see, you were referring to self-deception. That's tricky. It might not apply to all cases but it does seem to apply to many.

It works a lot better in your example than say an engineering project failure that kills people, especially if the source was something like a poor unit conversion rather than a decision point where a judgment call had to be made.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I see, you were referring to self-deception. That's tricky. It might not apply to all cases but it does seem to apply to many.

It works a lot better in your example than say an engineering project failure that kills people, especially if the source was something like a poor unit conversion rather than a decision point where a judgment call had to be made.

"How could you make a mistake like that?" seems to be a case of unpredictable process. The question that arises becomes whether the engineer has any clear intentions at all. One would hope they hired an engineer with a clear intention of "get everything right and build a safe bridge." However I suspect there are plenty of times where that is not the actual situation.

Every reactor operator I ever met, except a couple who I suspect where totally dishonest, would admit that there were times that they caught themselves thinking "I wish this turd would scram out, or spring a leak, or drop a rod...anything." I like to think that in my case I shook those idle thoughts off without them becoming anything like intentions, but any time there was a casualty that came down to plain and simple operator error I would wonder if there was any correlation.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that very rarely does it happen that people with no principles end up acting in an ethical manner. And principles can form in a number of very different ways.
Eg i dont intentionally harm anyone, at least not without analogous justification (and even then it would be trivial and not sustained).
Possibly the most common cause of bad intentions is lack of empathy in a person with notably juvenile personality in regards to social behavior. I'd much rather spend my energy on directing aliens to this god-forsaken planet so i can finally be returned to ultima s'ranthanphluih, of the thousand moons.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'd think a substantial amount of the people in this world are only alive as a consequence of bad intentions... especially if we include indirectly. I haven't really thought through what that means in terms of the "all intentions should be good" premise, but I wanted to throw that out there.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh definitely. There are redeemers as well as despoilers?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I see, you were referring to self-deception. That's tricky. It might not apply to all cases but it does seem to apply to many.

It works a lot better in your example than say an engineering project failure that kills people, especially if the source was something like a poor unit conversion rather than a decision point where a judgment call had to be made.

That poor unit conversion often happens because a company decides it is cheaper and faster to only use their own verification tools and stick to alternate units that the contract specifically did not allow because it was cheaper and more convenient to do that. There was a decision point that led directly to that failure, don't place the onus on the poor sap who made a trivial mistake because someone set him or her up to make that mistake in the first place.

And yes, contracts very often specify what units are too be used. I can't say for sure that applied in the Mars probe in question but it most likely did. And in any case Lockheed decided to cut corners and paid for it. It's not the programmer's fault that Lockheed had inadequate verification practices and used units out of line with their contracting agency.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Oh definitely. There are redeemers as well as despoilers?

Omelets, eggs... something along those lines for sure.

Speaking of which... isn't "good" intentions highly subjective in many cases? I mean, what if I am slaughtering a cow with the intention of using it to feed my family? My intentions are good from my family's perspective, sure... but what about from the cow's perspective? From the cow's perspective they're just getting murdered so my intentions are "bad", right? Also what if the cow belongs to someone else? From their perspective my intention is to be a naughty cow thief, so "bad" intentions from their perspective, regardless of how "good" I think my intentions are.

If the response to that is that all that matters is the subjective evaluation of intent from the perspective of the actor... well then that would seem to place violence and/or killings based on political and/or religious fanaticism squarely in the box of "good" intentions, wouldn't it? Just thinking out loud.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well sure. It's why we have to keep checking where the road we're paving is going. Still beats just staying there.

 

[El_Machinae]

This is why Jesus's redefining of 'neighbor' to be universal was so valuable.

There's always opportunity cost in all moral decisions. But we also live in a world where win/win is possible and where personal denial is possible.

Given what we know about climate change, fer ex, the beef eater is just as much a thief as the cattle-thief. There's no perfect answer, but there's *better*

 

[Farm Boy]

People used to more regularly practice forbearance with religious fasting and whatnot. I think we're probably worse for not flexing those. I like chicken better anyways, but I'm way too lazy to find all the places beef tallow and byproduct sneaks in.