Intent vs Purpose/ Result

[TigerNinja]

I will start this with a thought experiment. You are raised, believing that a certain group of people, be it an ethnic or religious group, is lower and less important. You are raised in that belief to the extent where you are so deeply rooted in that belief that it is your single philosophy. You realise that children born of both what you see as a well bred person and a lower group are the worst. They are a "Cross breed" of sorts. In this situation, you rise to power, and believe that it is your single duty to save humanity and in genocide, kill everyone of this group no matter what the cost. Your name, is Adolf Hitler in this experiment, and the group are Jews. The higher group are what Hitler saw as the perfect human. An human of either German descent or white, blue eyes and blonde hair. Hitler's overall intent was to save humanity. To prevent the degeneration of humanity through what you see as interbreeding. This goes back to the common thought, what is more important: Intent or purpose. I do not deny that subjective to my, and many people's belief he was a bad, some may say evil person. I do not deny his atrocities and the millions he killed despite being raised as a Christian to begin with in life. The result was countless dead and the eventual destruction of his plot. The intent was to protect and save humanity.

In one case, there was a debate whether knives where to be banned in the UK. I want to bring you to Skallagrim's channel on YouTube. Primarily he focuses on an unrelated topic, Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA), but does a few other genres as well. He brought up that if a knife is made to cut meat, but instead, someone uses to cut another man's throat, is that the knife or person. The accessibility of that knife results in the death in the first place, but if that person never had such intent, then the death would've never occurred. What do you think on this. What is more important in society and laws, and the accessibility of such things to begin with.

What side do you defend which should be taken into mind and treated more cautiously and more attentively. Intent, or purpose (of an object); Intent or result (Of an action).

[LuckyR]

I will start this with a thought experiment. You are raised, believing that a certain group of people, be it an ethnic or religious group, is lower and less important. You are raised in that belief to the extent where you are so deeply rooted in that belief that it is your single philosophy. You realise that children born of both what you see as a well bred person and a lower group are the worst. They are a "Cross breed" of sorts. In this situation, you rise to power, and believe that it is your single duty to save humanity and in genocide, kill everyone of this group no matter what the cost. Your name, is Adolf Hitler in this experiment, and the group are Jews. The higher group are what Hitler saw as the perfect human. An human of either German descent or white, blue eyes and blonde hair. Hitler's overall intent was to save humanity. To prevent the degeneration of humanity through what you see as interbreeding. This goes back to the common thought, what is more important: Intent or purpose. I do not deny that subjective to my, and many people's belief he was a bad, some may say evil person. I do not deny his atrocities and the millions he killed despite being raised as a Christian to begin with in life. The result was countless dead and the eventual destruction of his plot. The intent was to protect and save humanity.

In one case, there was a debate whether knives where to be banned in the UK. I want to bring you to Skallagrim's channel on YouTube. Primarily he focuses on an unrelated topic, Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA), but does a few other genres as well. He brought up that if a knife is made to cut meat, but instead, someone uses to cut another man's throat, is that the knife or person. The accessibility of that knife results in the death in the first place, but if that person never had such intent, then the death would've never occurred. What do you think on this. What is more important in society and laws, and the accessibility of such things to begin with.

What side do you defend which should be taken into mind and treated more cautiously and more attentively. Intent, or purpose (of an object); Intent or result (Of an action).

This issue has been covered in some detail in the Gun Control threads. Are guns the problem, or is the those pesky Humans pointing them at other Humans and pulling that trigger thing that's the problem?

I'm going with Humans being the problem.

[TSBU]

I will start this with a thought experiment. You are raised, believing that a certain group of people, be it an ethnic or religious group, is lower and less important.

What do you mean by "lower and less important"? Important for what? Lower in what?

You are raised in that belief to the extent where you are so deeply rooted in that belief that it is your single philosophy....

I can't imagine that. And I like this kind of experiments, but, really, I would have to try to delete a lot of stuff in my head to consider that right, enough to be talking about a person completely different, and I can't imagine something that big.

What side do you defend which should be taken into mind and treated more cautiously and more attentively. Intent, or purpose (of an object); Intent or result (Of an action).

I see people as hardware and software, some software can be instaled only in some hardware, some software is bad enough to destroy hardware, some software is dangerous and can't be erased without problems even if the hardware is good or still good. I don't mind about the "intent" of the person, I look only for the results of his software, and the kind of software he has had, tells me what hardware he is (wich is important only because the software he can have, and my notions about hardware changes when I see different software).

In simple terms: I only look at results, but, of course, results depend in the mind too.

[Newme]

Someone made the point that although slavery was horrifically wrong, many of the descendants of slaves may have better lives today because of their ancestors coming from Africa to America.
But only in retrospect could someone ethically say that the end may have partly justified the means.
Ethics, like anything, is very subjective and depends on perspective - and how far out or close up you zoom your lens.

I've wondered about intent vs result when it comes to karma.
If I don't intend to hurt someone, but carelessly do, am I accountable? Yes, I think so. Ignorance or carelessness is no excuse.
I tend to think that result is more powerful in the external world, but intent is more powerful in a person's inner world.

[Alias]

Someone made the point that although slavery was horrifically wrong, many of the descendants of slaves may have better lives today because of their ancestors coming from Africa to America.

Now there is a specious argument! The enslavement of African natives was part of the conquest and colonization of that continent by Europe. In no way, in no instance, in no particular or particle or iota is any descendant, in any part of the world, of any 17th-century African better off as a result of that devastation. (Not even Obama: he would be a good and respected king, instead of a vilified and largely unsuccessful president.)
Of course, a great many of those descendants wouldn't exist at all, since their forebears were the product of legal rape.

But only in retrospect could someone ethically say that the end may have partly justified the means.

No, they could not. From any perspective. If you look at black people's lives in Africa and the Americas today, each prosperous and successful person would be standing a heap of tortured bodies as tall as house. And many of those bodies are still moving.

I tend to think that result is more powerful in the external world, but intent is more powerful in a person's inner world.

That's because we have such a limited regard for the rest of the world and such an inflated regard for our own precious selves.
Action that involves others, undertaken without due diligence is negligent - regardless of intentions.

[Newme]

Now there is a specious argument! The enslavement of African natives was part of the conquest and colonization of that continent by Europe. In no way, in no instance, in no particular or particle or iota is any descendant, in any part of the world, of any 17th-century African better off as a result of that devastation. (Not even Obama: he would be a good and respected king, instead of a vilified and largely unsuccessful president.)

How do you know? You can't know. But consider the logic - when it came to rounding up slaves - (which was initially done usually by Africans) - would they go first for the most powerful people - or the least powerful people - to put in chains? And consider the extreme poverty in Africa today, where people live off of less than $1 a day - besides disease and civil wars (including genocides between themselves). Can you really, with any legitimacy, claim that African Americans are worse off than Africans? You know you can't.

I hate slavery - (& the fact that it still exists - just much less direct - more like sweat shops) - but the topic is not about that - but rather if the end result has had any good or if it was all 100% bad. Slavery was horribly awful and was ethically wrong - yet even out of such hell, it seems obvious that the descendants of many (not all) slaves that came to America, are better off than they would have been if they were born in Africa - just from a logical and statistical perspective.

If you look at black people's lives in Africa and the Americas today, each prosperous and successful person would be standing a heap of tortured bodies as tall as house. And many of those bodies are still moving.

Who are you referring to when you imply tortured bodies still alive?

I tend to think that result is more powerful in the external world, but intent is more powerful in a person's inner world.

That's because we have such a limited regard for the rest of the world and such an inflated regard for our own precious selves.
Action that involves others, undertaken without due diligence is negligent - regardless of intentions.

You misunderstood, or I wasn't clear - or both. Let me clarify. I was speaking about the possibility of karma. When someone is angry - and has bad intentions - so full of hatred that it is "eating them up inside" - it may be doing just that metaphysically (a negative form of the placebo effect). So, ie, someone may smile and even bend over backwards doing all kinds of nice things to someone, but inside they are pissed - the effect of that may not be felt by the person they are being nice to - but the person himself will feel it. And as far as external world - even if you have the best intentions, and may have tried to care - say you bought a big basket of food for a bulimic or wine for an alcoholic for gifts - the consequences will be felt by others besides you. It's not so much a matter of inflated regard for self as it is learning about cause-and-effect - in multiple levels (natural as well as spiritual laws).

[Alias]

How do you know? You can't know.

About any one particular person, no, I can't know. I'm only speculating on the basis of timelines in history.

But consider the logic - when it came to rounding up slaves - (which was initially done usually by Africans)

Yes. Do you also know the usual protocol that would have been followed, if the Europeans had not been there to buy these captives? Did the captors have any idea what the white man's protocol was? Or his plans?

- would they go first for the most powerful people - or the least powerful people - to put in chains?

First: to the greediest and least scrupulous traders. If they survived the voyage, to the highest bidder. nothing to do with power; all about money.

And consider the extreme poverty in Africa today, where people live off of less than $1 a day - besides disease and civil wars (including genocides between themselves).

Another legacy of European colonization, exploitation and devastation.

Can you really, with any legitimacy, claim that African Americans are worse off than Africans?

Two wrongs make an even bigger wrong, where some people who had no choice produced descendants who now have choice about the exploitation and impoverishment of the descendants of their distant relatives. Your point?

You know you can't.

I hate slavery

Good. Educate yourself about its many forms.

but the topic is not about that - but rather if the end result has had any good or if it was all 100% bad.

150% bad

Who are you referring to when you imply tortured bodies still alive?

The starvation, the tribal and religious wars, displaced people, broken nations, rootless men, abused women, orphans, child soldiers, AIDS... lots and lots of still-writhing bodies.

I was speaking about the possibility of karma.

Uh, sorry. I did misunderstand. I didn't realize this was about mumbo-jumbo.

When someone is angry - and has bad intentions - so full of hatred that it is "eating them up inside" - it may be doing just that metaphysically (a negative form of the placebo effect). So, ie, someone may smile and even bend over backwards doing all kinds of nice things to someone, but inside they are pissed - the effect of that may not be felt by the person they are being nice to - but the person himself will feel it. And as far as external world - even if you have the best intentions, and may have tried to care - say you bought a big basket of food for a bulimic or wine for an alcoholic for gifts - the consequences will be felt by others besides you. It's not so much a matter of inflated regard for self as it is learning about cause-and-effect - in multiple levels (natural as well as spiritual laws).

What?

[Sy Borg]

Amazing thought - ironic effects.

Logically, it is certain that some descendants of slaves in the US would be better off today than if their already-poor forebears had been able to say home. Logically, others would be worse off. Then, to be objective, consider the suffering of the slaves, the pleasure of the slavers, the corruption of the slavers' sensibilities and the tensions still reverberating today. Doing a gross scratch assessment, it looks like a large net negative, but no doubt there were lucky winners too as noted by Newme.

My father was a refugee from Austria after the Nazis took over and apparently two distant relatives were gassed. My family lost everything. Still, it's interesting to step back and wonder if in, say, 1,000 years, how a spin-off effect from those atrocities could turn out for the best. Or maybe Gandhi's inspired push for India's nonviolent independence will turn out to be a disaster?

My guess is that some big events were always inevitable, such as humans overpopulating and becoming increasingly unsustainable. Our level of empowerment meant that either we met premature destruction or self destruction or we'd become unsustainable. Even if most prior generations had been responsible family planning environmentalists, that would have only delayed the inevitable.