RE: Are 'Good' Intentions Good Enough? The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions
For the most part, I think you are right, it is the actions that matter. And keeping in mind that everybody is the protagonist in their own story, surely a lot of harm is being done with an intention that feels as something that is good or at least justified on the inside.
One of the big offenders in the camp of good intentions leading to bad consequences is religion and I think it's high time society stops giving it a pass on that.
But still, I would say that we cannot judge our selves and others solely on the consequences of our actions. Sometimes we act in a certain way that is fully justified based on the evidence and information we have access to at the time of the decision, but the consequences turn out to be negative. For instance, a doctor in an ER room might have to take measures to save a patient's life without full knowledge of their medical history and conditions and their actions might indeed lead to the patients death because of an underlying problem the doctor could not have know about. Should we really judge the doctor for the results of their actions only?
It goes the other way too. We persecute attempted murder because malicious intent is still a problem for society and the fact that your attempt at harmful action did not lead to the negative consequences you intended doesn't let you off the hook. Like if you tried to shoot the neighbor you hate, but your gun malfunctions when you pull the trigger, you have still committed a crime and a punishment is not justified. The same goes for conspiracy to commit murder. While pulling the trigger has an action component, talking about it pretty much 100% intent and it is still a crime and rightfully so.
That's why I think actions and results are more important than intent, but they cannot be the sole metric we judge ourselves and others on. Sometimes it is the thought what indeed counts.
Yes, there is another category of behavior where intentions to help do matter, as that is what they are sought for: to provide help. People can accept that someone could have done nothing, or that they did something to try to help. If they did nothing and someone would have died, then at least trying was better than doing nothing. So intentions don't really factor in for me there much, it's just logical. Anyways different contexts and scenarios can make it varied, but I think we can always reason out situations where someone does need to take responsibility. It can get tricky I'm sure, we could think of all types of dilemmas hehe.
And you're right about how intent does matter, as I said as well. They still performed an action, that demonstrated their intent, despite the result not being what they wanted. Catching people before they execute it is ideal, like in conspiracy cases. Intention does matter no doubt ;)
Would a "thought crime" be supported as a valid intent to convict someone of crime? I wonder how far things will go with future tech and crime prevention laws...
Sure, but that's what makes them interesting, too. Looking at cases that are in the fuzzy borders between action, intent and result helps us understand how they are connected and what we view as more relevant.
Depends on what exactly gets defined as a thought crime I think. For instance, I might hate my neighbor so much that I might even think that he doesn't deserve to live. I could go as far as to thinking that if there would be no consequences, I would kill him and I might even imagine killing them. But none of those qualifies are real intent in my opinion.