Identical absolute intentions: one totally good and the other not good?

[Boojatta]

If person A tries to help person A, then do you conclude that person A is selfish and imperfect? If person B tries to help person A, then do you conclude that person B is unselfish and possibly perfect? Since in both examples they have the same intention (to help person A), why come to opposite conclusions about the moral nature of their actions?

This began as a post in another thread:
Why would people work in your ideal system?

[Klukie]

1. No cononclusion can be made....

about person A or person B in regard to their morality without knowing the context in which they tried to help themselves or one another.

[SheilaT]

2. I'd need a lot more context

than you've given.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. Why is helping another

an element of perfection? And helping yourself is just biology.

You know, I hear that Mother Theresa was a real bitch. But I guess she helped a lot of Person B's.

[Boojatta]

4. As indicated in the Original Post, the body of the Original Post started

in another thread.

It was a response to this:

How do we get from imperfect people whos motivations are largely selfish to perfect people who's motivations are largely unselfish - this is one of the few times I feel like talking about religion - because obviously there have been various ways religions have tried to solve this problem.

You understood - the problem is implementation

Note that followers of Ayn Rand will have to deal with the same problem. She wrote "My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue (...)" It would seem that for followers of Ayn Rand, helping oneself also cannot be a major virtue. After all, if it's not a major virtue to deliberately help person A if one happens to be person B, then how can it be a major virtue to deliberately help person A if one happens to be person A?

Link:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_FAQ#obj_q7

[TallahasseeGrannie]

6. I also don't think of charity

as a major virtue. I think it is expected, a necessity.

Perfection to me has more to do with taking care of responsibilities. I think that too much altruism can, at times, be a sign of a low self-esteem. Or some other sort of neurosis.

But as a Christian, I don't see the goal as perfection. My goal is to walk my path with the Good Lord leading the way, and communing with Him. (or her)

[Boojatta]

7. Maybe there are two different interpretations of "major virtue."

I also don't think of charity as a major virtue. I think it is expected, a necessity.

You seem to be saying that someone who gives to charity doesn't deserve "major virtue" credit. Ayn Rand was saying that it doesn't much matter whether or not one gives to charity.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

9. Exactly

I think giving to others is just part of living in a social group. It has to be done, to a certain extent, at least. So no "major virtue" credit.

Now, the firefighters who went up the steps in the WTC while everyone else was going down...that is a major virtue credit.

[Boojatta]

8. "helping yourself is just biology."

Are you saying that because we are biological entities, anything that we do is just biology? In that case, any expert in any field of study is an expert at doing what the expert does, but what the expert does is just biology. So are all experts biologists?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. No, taking care of number one

is biology because it is a survival instinct.

[Silent3]

5. Presuming that person A...

...left New York at 4 PM traveling west at 40 mph, and person B left Chicago at 3 PM going south at 55 mph...

[Random_Australian]

11. They don't have the same intention though.

I'll put it like this:

Person C and D both intend to take one step forward.

Person D is standing on the edge of a tall cliff.

Is person C, who is walking into a store to get some milk, suicidal? That is, is his intent the same?

It is in taking a step forward, but not where it counts.

In other words, while both may want to help A from above, only B wants to help another.

And things are not so clear-cut as to make B perfect or anything by that, though.

[Boojatta]

12. An attempt to respond

I'll put it like this:

Person C and D both intend to take one step forward.

Person D is standing on the edge of a tall cliff.

Is person C, who is walking into a store to get some milk, suicidal? That is, is his intent the same?

You didn't say that person D realizes that person D is standing on the edge of a tall cliff. Perhaps person C and person D have the same intention. For example, perhaps both person C and person D intend to buy some milk for person E.

Two people who have the same goal might intend to achieve different subgoals. For example, each person has direct control over his or her own legs. We can distinguish between the intention to cause person C's legs to move in such a way that person C will take a step forward and the intention to cause person D's legs to move in such a way that person D will take a step forward. Those intentions are analogous, but not identical.

In other words, while both may want to help A from above, only B wants to help another.

From that, how do you conclude that person A and person B don't have the same intention? I specified that person A's intention is "to help person A" and that person B's intention is "to help person A." I don't think you have any wiggle room to deny that they are the same. I didn't tell you their actions and then ask you to guess what their intentions were.

And things are not so clear-cut as to make B perfect or anything by that, though.

I assumed that somebody might claim that B is possibly perfect, not that somebody might claim, based on the information supplied, that B is perfect.

[Random_Australian]

14. And yes, Person D was implied to know that they were on the edge of

a cliff, and their intentions were suicidal.

Basically, you say that "A moving A's legs forward is different to B moving B's legs forward" (paraphrasing) then by the same logic "B helping A is different to A helping A", which is the intended action.

Different intended actions, different intents.

[Boojatta]

15. Some questions

Different intended actions, different intents.

Suppose that there are various equally good methods for achieving a given outcome and that the methods are only slightly different from each other. Are you saying that the use of different methods implies that there are different intended outcomes? That's not very plausible. For example, you probably don't pay much attention to exactly where your thumb is touching the space bar when you press down.

Suppose you refer to intended action #1 as "intent #1" and you refer to intended action #2 as "intent #2." If intended action #1 is not the same as intended action #2, then it is undeniably true that intent #1 is not the same as intent #2. However, can you use that to arrive at any interesting conclusions?

[Random_Australian]

16. Where my thumb presses the spacebar gives a close, but different

probability of a space appearing. There is no such thing as equal actions... to be equal is to be the same.

"Suppose you refer to intended action #1 as "intent #1" and you refer to intended action #2 as "intent #2." If intended action #1 is not the same as intended action #2, "

I was more pointing out that your argument appeared to me to be based more on semantics than actual properties - I did not believe what I was saying, merely that you can freak around with words to make things sound different.

My point stands though - as a more realistic description of the intentions of the two people involves the process relative to each person, so they are very different intents.

In summary, that is basically what I am saying - the intents are different.

[charles22]

13. form of question rather odd.

What does it mean for someone to help oneself? Brushing one's teeth could be included. Why ask question in such a way?