"Anything is fine as long as your intentions are right" Options

[Call911Quick]

Opinions? If someone does something and messes up horribly and generally makes everyone else uncomfortable one way or another, but his or her "intentions" were right, do you think that's ok?

For example, I want to help clean the dishes. However, I slip, and knock down 3 or 4 dishes, and they shatter as they hit the floor. All I wanted to do was help!

What about cock blockers eh? You tell your bud about this girl you like, and they try to talk to her about you. Somehow, she's not a complete idiot, and catches the drift, and looks at you awkward. All your friend wanted to do was help!

Oh there are so many more examples of this. Would you guys forgive people if their intentions were right? Or... yeah.

[jesusisthebestth...]

I believe that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

However, a f**k up isn't always excusable - as in your examples.

Good intentions do not make things okay, take vigilantes for example. Just because someone kills kids it isn't okay for you to go and kill them. Although they have good intentions, murder is wrong.

[MissHygienic]

I believe that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

However, a f**k up isn't always excusable - as in your examples.

Good intentions do not make things okay, take vigilantes for example. Just because someone kills kids it isn't okay for you to go and kill them. Although they have good intentions, murder is wrong.

I'm completely lost by your statement. I vaguely understand your point, but it makes little sense to me. People who kill others likely don't have good intentions? This is a vocabulary word for today: malice. I am pretty sure that murderers don't have good intentions, they have malicious intent. Unless you can tell me how a murderer would have good intentions.

This is definitely situational, and how it's perceived. I don't believe in irrational decisions; choices that people make are never random, and therefore, it depends on the reasoning. I can't judge what is "right" or "good" on the situation alone, without considering what the person had in mind.

[NoSex]

I'm completely lost by your statement.

They're talking about Dexter. They're talking about capital punishment, mob lynching, and Dirty Harry cops. Essentially, they are arguing that taking a human life is wrong even if you imagine it is in the benefit of society, etc. etc.

A vigilante might kill in the name of justice, but does that make it inherently right?

This discussion is hard for me because I'm an amoralist. I don't believe in an objective morality. I believe than men base their ethical attitudes on emotional sentiment and taste. What we do not like, we call bad. What we empathize with and or like we call good. I propose that nothing is truly right or wrong; only our imaginations allows for such propositions.

[MissHygienic]

They're talking about Dexter. They're talking about capital punishment, mob lynching, and Dirty Harry cops. Essentially, they are arguing that taking a human life is wrong even if you imagine it is in the benefit of society, etc. etc.

A vigilante might kill in the name of justice, but does that make it inherently right?

Okay, now I get it. I'm not going to get into it because it'll probably end up in some argument about desensitization.

But in this world, there is no "right" or "wrong." It's not just X or Y, so this is basically a rhetorical question. I was confused by her statement because she went right down the black-and-white road of murder. It's situational, completely.