"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.

[brooklyneast05]

uhhh yeah? why wouldn't someone forgive another for accidentally dropping dishes?

i don't know, are u wanting us to apply this to something that really matters or just little petty things like the examples?

[S-Majere]

The worst f**k ups ever can be caused with the best intentions.

[*Steven*]

Completely situational.

[EddieV]

Nothing a good firearm can't take care of.

[MissFits]

Hitler had good intentions, does that mean he was right?

[*Steven*]

Hitler had good intentions, does that mean he was right?

Maybe good intentions for himself and the people who followed him...

[jaeman]

Today's society revolves around how it's perceived.

[MrStrife]

Some people can take it too far to the point it's no longer "right".

[yayrachel]

thats a pretty deep question. it think it depends on the seriousness of what your doing. like dropping dishes is no big deal. you didnt mean to. no one purposely got hurt as a result of your action. theres nothing 'morally wrong' with it. but like someone brang up, the intentions of hitler were good. he believed what he was doing was right. but that doesnt make it 'right' in the eyes of most people. he was purposly hurting people. was it right to him? yeah. but it wasnt morally right to most people.
so to answer your question, i think it depends on the person. 'good' and 'right' vary depending on who you ask.

[DoubleJ]

I totally agree with JC. I would always forgive somebody if there intentions were right. I have friends that f**k up, but I still love them because I know that they don't know any better.

[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.

[jaeman]

"Receive and you shall be forgiven."

[andherlayouts]

hmmm i think that this quote is rather interesting ! its both right or wrong like for instance is some terrible disastor a woman cooks a man tea to say sorry but somehow manages to burn the house down - there intention were right but i think the person should have been more responsable and it shouldnt be pushed aaway the person should suffer the concequences to learn to be more resonsable

....

[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.

[tokyo-rose]

It really depends. If it were something major, I would most likely accept, but not forgive. I'd probably forgive the person if it were something minor.

[demolished]

well, that's why we have choices wether we accept others. those who forgive are stronger than the ones who dont forgive. we ARE what we give ourselves.

yes, it does include if a person dies because of one's intention is good.

[Call911Quick]

uhhh yeah? why wouldn't someone forgive another for accidentally dropping dishes?

i don't know, are u wanting us to apply this to something that really matters or just little petty things like the examples?

I'm not trying to prove anything, just simply trying to stimulate discussion.

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.

Hey we have an Agent Smith.

[monster]

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.

relativist.


so, let's say i want to punch you in the face. would that be OK with you?

or, let's say that i want to bash on gays and black people. i want to get rid of laws that prevent me from hating on gays and black people. let's discriminate. that's alright with you?

[ChangeofHeart]

forgive but never forget

[MissHygienic]

forgive but never forget

I don't think you can truly forgive without forgetting.

[NoSex]

so, let's say i want to punch you in the face. would that be OK with you?

Uhm? I wouldn't like it very much, so no. It's a negative stimulus that is most definitely related to a number of evolutionary pressures that nearly any species would naturally find disfavorable - granted a few exceptions. It's just not pleasant to me, personally. I have no taste for it. As a result, I dislike it and wish that you would not do it. Further, I understand that my thoughts and feelings can be, not so unreasonably, juxtaposed into the forms of any other human being. This enlightenment allows for the creation of guilt which prevents me from undergoing activity which could eventually lead to my own displeasure - hitting another in the face might inspire them to retaliate in a similar fashion. My behavior is pragmatic to my comfortable survival.

or, let's say that i want to bash on gays and black people. i want to get rid of laws that prevent me from hating on gays and black people. let's discriminate. that's alright with you?

No, that wouldn't be alright for me in much a similar way as described above. However, in both situations, and, in fact, in all situations, there are no real necessary connexions between my displeasure and this so-called morality - goodness and evil. As much as I can vividly describe the factual details of an event, we can never extrapolate from this whether or not something is ultimately and absolutely wrong or right in any sort of ethical sense. Ethics is merely the language human beings us to communicate their sentiment, tastes, pleasures, and displeasures. There is, insofar as we can tell, no outside force insuring the objectivity of any given ethical proposition - such is merely a fantasy of the human arrogance and ego.

So, I don't like that, but that doesn't mean it's "wrong" or "bad." It simply means, I don't like it.

[ersatz]

Obviously everyone thinks they are in the right intentions when doing something. It's the best for them. No one would do something if they thought it would cause harm (either now or in the future) to themselves. They do it to help themselves, to do good for themselves. People who don't cut themselves view cutting as "bad" but those who cut themselves view it as "good" because it focuses pain elsewhere than their mind (for a few seconds, cause pretty soon, they'll feel bad about having to cut themselves to stop being sad). People who kill others think it's fine because they are doing something to help the world in their own ideal world view, by either making a statement or cleansing the world of something they deem harmful. People don't just accept something because the person thought they were doing something good. That would be absurd. Things can be "bad" or "good" to different people, just like the example above. Podo punching Nate in the face is obviously not beneficial to Nate; his face hurts now. That sucks. But I guess it would make Podo feel better about himself if he could, cause I don't think he likes Nate very much, so that'd be great for him. Boosting self-esteem. Awesome.