Actions: Act and Intent

Before you read further, understand that I hold no qualifications as a philosopher or theologian. This could very well be heretical (although I would hope it’s not) for all I know. So if you know better, or think you do, let me know.

It seems to me that whenever we undertake an action, there are at least two discrete elements, which for right now we will define as act and intent.  If we want to look at the morality of an action, these are the elements we must focus on, what you are going to do, and why you will do it. We focus on these because I believe in large part the morality of an action derives from your intent(for good or evil), the sticking point is whether or not an act can by itself be evil.

It is easiest to start small when examining this. We can all agree that firing a pistol is by itself a morally ambiguous act. One can fire a pistol for any number of reasons, the act holds no significance on it’s own; in this case the morality of your action depends upon your intent. Firing in self-defense I think we can all agree is morally acceptable, fired out of anger, to murder, we hold to be an immoral, an evil act. Regardless of the result of either action, here is a situation where we have an identical act, whose morality is defined by the intent of the individual. I think it’s important to state that the result is not significant, it is the intent that defines your action.

So if we can all agree that there are morally ambiguous acts, can we also find that there are acts that are inherently evil? Or conversely, are there acts of inherent good?

If we begin by examining acts which we can regard definitively as evil, why not begin with the extreme. Your act is to kill tens of thousands. At first glance, that strikes one as an act of evil. How can the death of thousands, and let us go further, innocent thousands, be anything but? We would be remiss to dismiss intent so quickly, however. What if the death of tens of thousands of innocents is necessary for peace? When we dropped the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima, we extinguished, in the blink of an eye, tens of thousands of innocent lives. But the intent of this action was not the wanton death of civilians, but the sparing of a great many more lives; those of the Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, Airman, and yes Japanese civilians (if there are any who doubt that a great many Japanese civilians would have played a part in their own death, look up the suicide cliffs on Saipan or Okinawa)  who would have otherwise lost their lives, if we had invaded. Of course there is also genocide, but genocide is not an act, it is an action; it is the killing of thousands for racial purification, an evil intent if ever there was.

Now that we have established (briefly) that there is no act inherently evil, is there an act inherently good? Most would agree that donating (be it time or money) is a moral act, but again, intent is the defining factor. Again, we must stress that result has no bearing on the morality of your action, a murderer who misses is still guilty of evil, someone who kills in self-defense is righteous. So while your donation may benefit another, if you donate in order to enhance your own standing, as the self-righteous pharisee prays, then there is no good in your action. It’s not necessarily evil, and if it is it would seem to be minor, but you have done no good.

So why do we focus so much on act? Why today are headlines descriptions of acts, not actions, and most definitely not intents? Because an act is there, physical and present, and ultimately we now live in a shallow society. We attach more to the self-aggrandizing posturing of a billionaire than we do to the quiet gift of a nobody volunteering in a soup kitchen. Intent is difficult to discern, and in the absence of a societal sense of honour almost impossible to verify. In any case, journalists have (apparently) better things to do with their time.

Advertisement