Are intentions enough to justify destructive actions?

One question that constantly comes up when someone does something with a negative impact is how important is the intention behind that action? If the intention was to do good does it mean the individual should be given a break. Could it be that intentions behind actions are more important than the impact caused by the actions.

In my view most people have good intentions. As humans we’re wired to seek comfort and I believe that is linked to us wanting the best or the most positive outcomes in most instances. We’re wired to be good. What this positive effect is to us usually guides our actions. As much as there may be individuals who just want to watch the world burn I believe they’re insignificant when compared to those that would want to see and experience bliss.

Looking at the world and how evil appears to be everywhere I would expect most people to disagree with my above statement. After all when one opens the news there’s always a multitude of stories of horrible crimes humans are committing. It looks like the world is wrapped in the hands of evil individuals whose intentions are to make everyone else suffer. You might have even experienced this evil first hand and from the trauma your trust in anything resembling good in humans completely eroded. This is completely valid, there is a lot of bad around the world.

The intentions behind some of the most destructive actions are particularly fascinating. What drives some individuals commit terrible crimes that harm humanity? A good example is war. When going to war both of the sides think they are right, they both think they’re fighting a greater evil and that the end justifies the means. None of the sides ever think that they might be on the wrong side. In their countries they are both celebrated as selfless heroes. Outside of their countries they are both seen as monsters. Which of these is true then if they’re both saints and devils? The only difference lies on who you ask. The truth lies with the observer but it is never the whole truth. It’s the truth from their view point.

Something distinct about both sides is they’re both convinced they’re doing the right thing. The belief of having pure intentions is what drives each side to be willing to die in order to stop the evil of the opposing side. I think that’s the purest level of good intent, when you’re willing to give up your own life in the belief that those you leave behind can have a brighter future. The ultimate sacrifice. Unfortunately the action that comes from this good intent is also the greatest form of evil that an individual on the other side has experienced. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This creates a dead lock. The hero is also the villain. Ultimate good is also ultimate evil. The only difference between the two is the perspective one has. None of the perspectives are wrong and in isolation they’re not fully correct either. They’re simply partial experiences and views of a more complex system. In a case like this intentions seem to not be enough as the purest of intentions leads to an evil action being committed.

One thing I think is necessary to ensure good intentions don’t mislead us as humans is for us to be open to the possibility of being wrong. Asking ourselves the question “could I be wrong?” allows room to inspect our intentions further and explore what intentions of those around us. Often we might find that those we perceive to be enemies have similar intentions to ours but maybe we simply differ in views of how to achieve the end goals or our end goals are slightly different.

Now that we’ve said intentions alone cannot be enough to justify actions resulting in a net negative impact does that mean actions matter more than intent? We’ll explore this in the next perspectivey…