Question of the Week 8; to what extent do motives matter?

[La Femme Fatale]

I had just written a decent-sized explanation for this question, but it got annihilated when I clicked the 'x' instead of the tab next to it. So, here we go again -

To what extent to motives matter when making decisions?

Is a 'good' decision made for the wrong reasons still a good and justifiable decision? Likewise, is a 'bad' decision made for the right reasons still a bad decision?

Does the impact of the decision itself excuse someone's motives for making it? In essence, does the end justify the means?

To conceptualize it better for you, I'm going to use an example in the movie Inglourious Basterds. I've put it in spoiler tags to please those who are anal about spoilers. You don't have to use this example when explaining your answer, this is just for thought.

Spoiler

One of the major characters, a Nazi, in IB finds himself in a position where he can indirectly destroy Hitler and the Nazi high command; successfully suceeded in ending World War Two and saving millions of lives. However, his reasoning for doing so is entirely self-serving; he wants to save his own ass from being held accountable for his actions during the war, and he wants the fame and fortune that would come from 'single-handedly' ending the war. So, in your opinion, would a good decision made for the wrong reasons still be preferable? Does the decision itself excuse or make irrelevant the reasoning behind it?

 

[Kagara]

To what extent to motives matter when making decisions?

Is a 'good' decision made for the wrong reasons still a good and justifiable decision? Likewise, is a 'bad' decision made for the right reasons still a bad decision?

Does the impact of the decision itself excuse someone's motives for making it? In essence, does the end justify the means?

It depends on who is viewing the decision. Those who are more sensitive might still class the act as "wrong" regardless of what would come of it. I think in the real world most "good" decisions are made mostly for "wrong" reasons, for example, let's say a large company declares that it has developed a cure for cancer and that cure is now available. Though the cure for cancer would be wondrous for humanity, the company would generate massive amounts of money and fame from it, which would likely be the initiative in the first place.

BTW, I know I'm a bit late in saying this but great idea with the question threads, Femme Fatale.

 

[Popo]

i cant believe it, i spent an eternity typing an answer to this topic, and by accident i deleted the webpage...

i have given up

 

[Mr Sunshine]

It depends on who is viewing the decision. Those who are more sensitive might still class the act as "wrong" regardless of what would come of it. I think in the real world most "good" decisions are made mostly for "wrong" reasons, for example, let's say a large company declares that it has developed a cure for cancer and that cure is now available. Though the cure for cancer would be wondrous for humanity, the company would generate massive amounts of money and fame from it, which would likely be the initiative in the first place.

But it isn't just the company. There are scientists who work to create a cure for a virus. Their motives differ from the ones of their superiors.

 

[Kagara]

I was referring to those who run the company, not those hired by them.

 

[Mr Sunshine]

Yes I understood that. I was just trying to say that there are also good motives in this example.

Personally I believe that motives are more important than the act itself. If you take a good decision for the wrong reason you are a bad guy.

Sorry for the lack of decent vocabulary..

 

[Hoady]

Well someone who considers something good someone else might consider bad,which seems to be only so frequent and thats why i have a fond difficulty with this question.If it appeals good to me i can't really say, i guess it depends on the situation.For example if someone found the main cure for all mental illnesses but on the way he had to deceive and kidnap/kill people etc for testing that in itself is pretty terrible, you'd consider that guy to be just as mentally ill as everyone else.

In the end its a long term resolve, if it was something like cancer mentioned as above i honestly don't think many people are going to care it all purely comes down too survival and i don't think many people, religious or not are ready to accept death.

 

[La Femme Fatale]

I think, above all, it's important to look at the situation in its entirety and weigh the pros and the cons of the decision itself. If the pros outweigh the cons then the decision is what's most important, not necessarily how one gets there. Like the example Hoady used, if someone found the cure for cancer but in doing so had to take out a couple people or he was just doing it for fame and fortune, I don't think that trumps the fact that millions of people will now be able to live and be free of the disease. In my opinion, it's the greater good that matters most.

However, like I said, it depends entirely on the difference between the pros and cons. If someone has to torture one person to receive information about a bombing that will kill 1000 people (and they are certain this person has that information), then the act of saving one thousand people IMO is more important than the torture of one person. It gets more muddy and difficult when the pros and cons are near-level. Then I don't know.

When it comes down to motives though, I'm unsure. While a good decision made for the wrong reasons can become a wrong decision, it depends entirely on each individual situation. If someone is able to create a cure for cancer but only wanted to make alot of money... I don't think it changes the fact that people now have access to the cure and as a result, millions of lives will be saved. Yes, motives reflect upon the individual person but I don't think it should diminish or make irrelevant the outcome, should the outcome be beneficial to others.