3 ms·

There was a debate I used to have with a coworker. He claimed that the "goodness" of an act is determined solely by the intent of the actor. That sounds nice o

There was a debate I used to have with a coworker. He claimed that the "goodness" of an act is determined solely by the intent of the actor. That sounds nice on the surface. But imagine two people, each of whom, say, built a hospital for children: One guy is greedy, and built the hospital only because he knows that parents will pay just about anything to heal their children. He used the best architects and materials to create a world-class facility to help attract the best doctors, because then he'd be able to charge top dollar. The other guy has a heart of gold, and is just desperate to have something to serve those poor unfortunate kids. So begs for funding, and cuts every corner, to create a facility. Flash forward a year, and we see: #1 - Parents picketing outside, calling the owner of the hotel an evil 1% because it costs so much to treat kids there (because it costs so much to run the facility, and the greedy owner wants his share too). #2 - A pile of rubble, with weeping parents because of the dozens of people killed -- including the child patients -- when the building, with all the cut corners, collapsed. In these two stories, who is the bad guy? My friend claims that #1 is evil, and #2 is a hero, entirely based on the intent of each. How can that be, when #1 is successfully making kids better, and #2 has caused their deaths? Do we want to have more of #2, and fewer of #1?

VladRussian 15y ago
The #1 is the one who runs the society and has politicians in his pockets so they make sure that no universal healthcare is implemented and the people are forced to choose between the only alternatives you listed - i.e. scared by #2 the people are forced to go to #1 which produces more money for #1 for more political power. Repeat from the start.
kalid 15y ago
Interesting philosophical questions :). I think the goodness of the act is determined (partly? mostly?) by the intent at the time of its inception. In poker, you don't judge a decision as good or bad based on if you eventually win the hand. It's based on the information you had at the time. If you go all in with a 2-7 offsuit (worst hand) and get lucky and win, it was still a bad decision -- you shouldn't have done it, even though it turned out ok. Flip it on its head. Two hunters are in the woods and shoot recklessly into a bush. Hunter A happens to hit a person hiding there. Hunter B happens to hit a tree. Why does the random presence of a stranger make one act less bad than the other? Two assassins shoot their victims. Victim A dies. Victim B clings to life, struggling greatly and manages to survive. Why does one get "murder" and the other "attempted murder?". Why does the victim's painful struggle to live make the original act less bad? It's a bit like that. The #2 case was done out of caring, and it was bad luck that it collapsed. Clearly, if he had known the building would collapse he wouldn't have built it that way. For #1... well, if the cost of the building collapsing was less than the money saved, he'd do it. I think intent matters because we can't really control outcomes.
grandalf 15y ago
Of course those with resources, skills, etc., can make a very big impact... highly leveraged based on the extra skill or wealth. And there is a sense in which this is the only relevant metric for philanthropy. However, since most people like to infer that philanthropy is an indication of a person's good character, I think the sacrifice metric is also relevant. In my ideal world, philanthropy would be viewed as one of many behaviors that might be fun and self-actualizing for a person (selfish) and this sort of selfishness would not be viewed as a bad thing. The problem (and the reason I felt it necessary to comment) is b/c many people are all to ready to praise a rich person for a donation that represents no true investment of self, akin to me giving a homeless guy the half sandwich I couldn't finish at a restaurant and had boxed. Piling praise on a billionaire for donating $500K is reminiscent of the days when serfs knelt before the land owners in hopes of a crumb or a coin. This is not intended as a criticism of Sergey at all, btw.

VladRussian 15y ago

The #1 is the one who runs the society and has politicians in his pockets so they make sure that no universal healthcare is implemented and the people are forced to choose between the only alternatives you listed - i.e. scared by #2 the people are forced to go to #1 which produces more money for #1 for more political power. Repeat from the start.

kalid 15y ago

Interesting philosophical questions :). I think the goodness of the act is determined (partly? mostly?) by the intent at the time of its inception. In poker, you don't judge a decision as good or bad based on if you eventually win the hand. It's based on the information you had at the time. If you go all in with a 2-7 offsuit (worst hand) and get lucky and win, it was still a bad decision -- you shouldn't have done it, even though it turned out ok. Flip it on its head. Two hunters are in the woods and shoot recklessly into a bush. Hunter A happens to hit a person hiding there. Hunter B happens to hit a tree. Why does the random presence of a stranger make one act less bad than the other? Two assassins shoot their victims. Victim A dies. Victim B clings to life, struggling greatly and manages to survive. Why does one get "murder" and the other "attempted murder?". Why does the victim's painful struggle to live make the original act less bad? It's a bit like that. The #2 case was done out of caring, and it was bad luck that it collapsed. Clearly, if he had known the building would collapse he wouldn't have built it that way. For #1... well, if the cost of the building collapsing was less than the money saved, he'd do it. I think intent matters because we can't really control outcomes.

grandalf 15y ago

Of course those with resources, skills, etc., can make a very big impact... highly leveraged based on the extra skill or wealth. And there is a sense in which this is the only relevant metric for philanthropy. However, since most people like to infer that philanthropy is an indication of a person's good character, I think the sacrifice metric is also relevant. In my ideal world, philanthropy would be viewed as one of many behaviors that might be fun and self-actualizing for a person (selfish) and this sort of selfishness would not be viewed as a bad thing. The problem (and the reason I felt it necessary to comment) is b/c many people are all to ready to praise a rich person for a donation that represents no true investment of self, akin to me giving a homeless guy the half sandwich I couldn't finish at a restaurant and had boxed. Piling praise on a billionaire for donating $500K is reminiscent of the days when serfs knelt before the land owners in hopes of a crumb or a coin. This is not intended as a criticism of Sergey at all, btw.