intention or result

[someguy]

Which is more important intention or the result?
Both of those will have implications that I'll bring up abit later but for now lets see what you say.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Which is more important intention or the result?
Both of those will have implications that I'll bring up abit later but for now lets see what you say.

Intention of course. If poor results are produced then you proceed by paying attention to what may produce the result desired. That is how you learn; it is goal setting at its most base level.
Sean

 

[someguy]

So if I intend well and plan to bring world peace then even if I know I can't even begin to conqure the world but that would be a good place to start than I should no matter howmany lives would be lost?
A bit of a bad example but I'm not feeling at the top of the game today.

 

[Touch Of Death]

So if I intend well and plan to bring world peace then even if I know I can't even begin to conqure the world but that would be a good place to start than I should no matter howmany lives would be lost?
A bit of a bad example but I'm not feeling at the top of the game today.

Well if you know your not even begin to make a dent and you start killing people anyway, your really haven't learned to work with reality. Had Britain not won WWI, you could really question the decision to spend so many lives in the trenches. They didn't know what the hell to do, but they did intend win. In fact the allies won so overwhelmingly it caused WWII.
Sean

 

[WillFightForBeer]

Result is all that matters. When I was discussing the subject of the "Human Nature" thread with my brother and I pointed out that charity gives some people a good feeling, and that is why they do it, he replied that it doesn't matter, because it still benefits the people recieving the charity. The person could do it for any given reason, but the people on the recieving end are benefiting regardless.

 

[OUMoose]

I think the result is more important than the intent. If you intend to do something, think it through. Make sure the result is what you planned, and that it's solid.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I think the result is more important than the intent. If you intend to do something, think it through. Make sure the result is what you planned, and that it's solid.

Thats called trial and error. without intent there is no result, just random occurances.
Sean

 

[markulous]

I think they are about equally important. Without the right intentions your not going to get the results. But the results are the actual physical effects, so...

 

[MA-Caver]

IMO: Results are important but it depends upon the application. Intentions are good as long as they're (umm) good intentions. But what good are intentions if they don't produce results? Likewise what good are the results if they're not what you intended?
Might as well ask the importance between acceptance and expectations. :uhyeah:

 

[Ender]

which is better, one who says he will serve and does not? or one who says he will not serve, then does?......Jesus

 

[Chicago Green Dragon]

Very interesting question and quote.............

Is also the deed greater on one or the other or just as bad ?

Chicago Green Dragon

:asian:

which is better, one who says he will serve and does not? or one who says he will not serve, then does?......Jesus

 

[Touch Of Death]

Very interesting question and quote.............

Is also the deed greater on one or the other or just as bad ?

Chicago Green Dragon

:asian:

Lets just say in the eyes of the law, intent is most important. If some one dies durring the commission of an intended felony, you are up for murder #1.
Sean

 

[OUMoose]

Lets just say in the eyes of the law, intent is most important. If some one dies durring the commission of an intended felony, you are up for murder #1.

If you kill someone in a car accident (negative result without intent), you still go up the river for Manslaughter. So wouldn't that mean the result is more important to them than the intent?

 

[someguy]

If result is what is most important than well Machiaveli(sp?) was right and the end justifies the means. Hitler intended to help Germany and his way was to do the whole holocaust thing. I guess I have to say both are very important.

 

[Rich Parsons]

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was the not the intent but the result of sexual discrimination that mattered. Even though you did not mean to hurt the person, the jokes, and or physical contact are not acceptable.


Now, to me, the intent for me was to live a nice happy life. The result has not been that. Does that mean I give it up? No, I continue with my intent and enjoy what I can. The deaths and divorce and the forced job changes may not have been desired or wanted, yet they happened.

So, if I mean to be well, and I hurt someone in the process, the best I can do is apologize and mean it and move on even though I did not mean to hurt the person.

Yet, some could argue that feed your family and or keeping them alive and that result is what is the big picture, such as those in the Andes from a plane crash who survived on the dead passengers, the intent was to survive and that was the result. Yet, in the end another result was acheived, and that was canabalism. So, did this result justify the other result? It is not for me to determine as I was not there.

I know the thoughts are not connected, they are just put out for discussion.

 

[someguy]

I think it would be justified then even if it is kind of sickening to think of eating humans but the kill another human to survive...

 

[loki09789]

I think Intent is more important than results, but in the larger scheme, they are both important. The legal system, by the degree of sentencing for each, also places more emphasis on intent. If someone dies as a result of your negligece, it is manslaughter and not as severely punished as premeditated murder.

In the service there was a saying: "Good motivation/intention, poor judgement" Basically, your ability to link what you want to accomplish to an effective plan is not well developed. You can be trained. The person who makes mistakes or takes actions with apathy or malice is harder to train/reform or can not be trained/reformed at all.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I think Intent is more important than results, but in the larger scheme, they are both important. The legal system, by the degree of sentencing for each, also places more emphasis on intent. If someone dies as a result of your negligece, it is manslaughter and not as severely punished as premeditated murder.

In the service there was a saying: "Good motivation/intention, poor judgement" Basically, your ability to link what you want to accomplish to an effective plan is not well developed. You can be trained. The person who makes mistakes or takes actions with apathy or malice is harder to train/reform or can not be trained/reformed at all.

I agree. If a person goes around killing people at random, and he gets a few child molesters in the process. The end did not justify the means.
Sean

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Rich:

".....The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was the not the intent but the result of sexual discrimination that mattered. Even though you did not mean to hurt the person, the jokes, and or physical contact are not acceptable....."

I have always found that very interesting as here in Illinois the determination of whether or not an item can be viewed as a weapon has to do with the intent behind its being used. In this way holding a tire iron with the intent to change a tire rules it as not a weapon while intending to part somebodys' hair with it does. I was once ticketed for bringing training items onto a VA hospital grounds. The security at the hospital considered them weapons but I and my students don't. It didn't matter in that case WHAT my intention was. The people at the hospital saw what they wanted to see and didn't want to be confused with the facts. :idunno:

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Rich Parsons]

Dear Rich:

".....The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was the not the intent but the result of sexual discrimination that mattered. Even though you did not mean to hurt the person, the jokes, and or physical contact are not acceptable....."

I have always found that very interesting as here in Illinois the determination of whether or not an item can be viewed as a weapon has to do with the intent behind its being used. In this way holding a tire iron with the intent to change a tire rules it as not a weapon while intending to part somebodys' hair with it does. I was once ticketed for bringing training items onto a VA hospital grounds. The security at the hospital considered them weapons but I and my students don't. It didn't matter in that case WHAT my intention was. The people at the hospital saw what they wanted to see and didn't want to be confused with the facts. :idunno:

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Bruce,

Most laws that I Have read or researched state intent is what determines the level of charge. If you jsut defend your self with what is at hand then you were fine to reach for the Tire Iron to stop the guy with the baseball bat. Yet, if you get out of your car with the tire iron and go and meet the guy 50/50 from his car then your intent was to use the tire iron as a weapon. If you take the tire iron and charge the guys car because he cut you off and tehn he grabs his baseball bat to defend himself, ..., .

All three have different outcomes or procedures based upon intent. Yet, add in if someone gets killed then sometimes the systme makes examples of people. They play up that death, and even if you were the one in the first case, just defending yourself, you still could go to jail for killing the person.

As to result being and end all. I do not agree with it. As to intent being and end all, I do not agree with that either.

Best Regards