Can a good or bad action ever cause effects to the opposite?

[Scarf-Ace]

Suppose that there are bad actions, and also good ones.

Can a good action ever cause a bad effect, and likewise a bad one, a good effect?

[Dunderman]

Before I can suppose that there are good actions and bad actions, you'll have to define both "good action" and "bad action".

[Larry Borgia]

all the time.

You take pity on a homeless guy and give him $5. He uses that money to buy the fifth of cheap vodka that finally causes his long abused liver to fail.

Similarly, you rob the above homeless guy. This causes him to take a look at his life and realize how low he's sunk so he goes to a shelter, dries out, checks into a program etc.

Life is complex. All our actions have ripple effects, some will not be what we intend.

[Scarf-Ace]

Larry Borgia:

Before I can suppose that there are good actions and bad actions, you'll have to define both "good action" and "bad action".

Good action = an action that is done with a good intention. Bad action = an action that is done with a bad intention.


Larry Borgia:

You take pity on a homeless guy and give him $5. He uses that money to buy the fifth of cheap vodka that finally causes his long abused liver to fail.

If you think along those lines then giving money to people with an obvious drug or alchohol becomes a bad action, so naturally you have bad effects that follow.

Similarly, you rob the above homeless guy. This causes him to take a look at his life and realize how low he's sunk so he goes to a shelter, dries out, checks into a program etc.

I would like to hear from anyone who can confirm that anything like this has ever happened. I seriously doubt it.

[Dunderman]

Originally Posted by Meta-Gumble

Good action = an action that is done with a good intention. Bad action = an action that is done with a bad intention.

Then yes, obviously. Is this really a debate? Are you really the least bit uncertain as to whether an action ever has an unintended effect?

[Larry Borgia]

Just to be clear, my examples were off the cuff responses, not meant to be taken too seriously.

I'm sure most people can think of dozens of examples of good intentions leading to bad effects and bad intentions leading to good effects.

[Scarf-Ace]

Nonono - I mean an action leading to another action, not just any effect.

[Dunderman]

Either I'm thick or you have poor communication skills. Could you try to explain what exactly you mean? Use lots of words.

[Krokodil]

Let's say you vaccinate a nation of children against acute diseases (diptheria, whooping cough, smallpox). Before this was done, a tiny percentage of the population died from cancer or Alzheimers. Afterwards, nearly a third died from them. I'm fudging the numbers, but lung cancer was apparently quite rare before the mid- 20th Century. (Mass production of cheap cigarettes is another culprit, though.)

Or, let's say you vaccinate hundreds of thousands of African schoolchildren against malaria and polio--but you re-use a lot of the needles several times, causing a small outbreak of AIDS (It was long theorized that this actually happened, but new data--or at least Gary Null's radio show--suggests that AIDS is much less prevalent in Africa than is generally believed).

Or, let's say there was an experimental polio vaccine in the early 60s that was slipped in with the routine polio vaccinations, to the degree that maybe one student in 100 got the experimental dose. The experimental dose was defective and actually caused polio in some of the students and their immediate family.

Of course, without those mass vaccinations, quite a few of us would be dead (or in Iron Lungs). I don't know how to balance that out. But the road to Hell is very much paved with good intentions.

American GIs in Europe, right after WWII, overpaid and overtipped all over France and Italy. Hey, I wouldn't mind getting overpaid or overtipped! But their munificent gesture wrecked several European economies (Who's going to sell a starving peasant a baguette for two francs when you can sell it to some vulgar GI for 8 or 9? A good deal all around--except for the peasant who can't pay more than the two francs he'd been paying all along).

Short answer: Yes, "good" gestures have often had "bad" consequences.

[capacitor]

Bad action turned good--a bully kicking sand in weakling Charles Atlas's face.

[emekthian]

At some point, some person saved the life of one of Adolf Hitler's ancestors. If that person never saved the ancestor, Hitler never would've been born and the Holocost never would've happened.

[JasonFin]

Most people seem to think it's obvious that a good action can have an unanticipated bad effect. A more interesting question is wether an action with an anticipated bad effect can be a good action. If a person carries out an action with a good intention, despite knowing that it will have bad effects, can that be a good action?

What if the actor's intent is good, but he or she knows that the bad effects of this action will actually outweigh the good effects? Can such an action ever be good?

I would answer yes to the first question and am uncertain wether to answer yes or no to the second. I'm inclined to believe that an action taken in accordance with a just principle can be good even if no good effects could follow from it, but I suspect this idea could have problems.

[Yllaria]

Sounds like the good/bad action/intent/effect distinctions are getting muddled. At least I'm confused.

Here in Stockton last year there was a robbery at a small store. The owner was shot. While surgeons were removing one of the bullets, they discovered an embolism on his aorta two inches in diameter and ready to blow. If it had ruptured, even in the operating room before surgery, he'd have died.

Is this an example of a bad action having a good effect, by your definition?

[Krokodil]

There was an Aerosmith video in the 90s (I think it was for "Livin' on the Edge") wherein a car-stealin', joy-ridin' Edward Furlong did more and more extreme stuff, but was shielded from the consequences by well-meaning, condom-dispensing Dad and by Chevy airbags. Did these safety nets make him live more safely and soberly? Heh heh, kinda the opposite. There are endless examples of this in real life, too.

The Marquess of Queensbury, in trying to make boxing safer, made it far more dangerous. Bareknuckle boxing weeded out the week and uncommited pretty fast; today, they stay with the sport for its "aerobic" qualities. And while one punch from a gloved fist does less damage than one from an ungloved one, the bareknuckle boxer's career typically involved getting hit a couple hundred times, a few dozen to the head. Today, a boxer endures thousands of head and body blows, with a cumulative effect much more serious than what any of John L. Sullivan's sparring partners endured.

[Scarf-Ace]

Priceguy - please ignore my previous post, I was jabbering.

Krokodil:

Let's say you vaccinate a nation of children against acute diseases (diptheria, whooping cough, smallpox). Before this was done, a tiny percentage of the population died from cancer or Alzheimers. Afterwards, nearly a third died from them. I'm fudging the numbers, but lung cancer was apparently quite rare before the mid- 20th Century. (Mass production of cheap cigarettes is another culprit, though.)

Or, let's say you vaccinate hundreds of thousands of African schoolchildren against malaria and polio--but you re-use a lot of the needles several times, causing a small outbreak of AIDS (It was long theorized that this actually happened, but new data--or at least Gary Null's radio show--suggests that AIDS is much less prevalent in Africa than is generally believed).

Or, let's say there was an experimental polio vaccine in the early 60s that was slipped in with the routine polio vaccinations, to the degree that maybe one student in 100 got the experimental dose. The experimental dose was defective and actually caused polio in some of the students and their immediate family.

In the examples you give there certainly are good intentions - to prevent disease, but in each of those cases there is also a factor of doing harm due to ignorance or incompetence, so the bad effects cannot be solely attributed to the good intentions.

Yllaria:

Here in Stockton last year there was a robbery at a small store. The owner was shot. While surgeons were removing one of the bullets, they discovered an embolism on his aorta two inches in diameter and ready to blow. If it had ruptured, even in the operating room before surgery, he'd have died.

Is this an example of a bad action having a good effect, by your definition?

Yes, it is. Anyone got any examples of the opposite? I can't think of any myself.

[nocturnal_tick]

Doing something good that turns out bad?

What if you were driving your car and give way to let a little old lady cross the road. Just so happens at that moment a car being chased by the police comes out of nowhere and its bye-bye Grandma. You were not required to stop but it was a kind gesture and a good action. Unfortunately it has led to only tragic circumstances.

[Zagadka]

You can often tell if something is true by testing the invalidity of the opposite -

Do good actions/intents always have good effects?

The answer to this question is much clearer - I won't go into drawing up hypothetical examples, but I'm sure you can agree that simply having good intents does not guarantee good results.

[Scarf-Ace]

I suppose, but theres also the question of responsibility - someone who intends to do good is assumed to have a certain degree of responsibility for his actions, therefore anything that goes bad is due to his fault (lack of knowledge of possible effects).

Someone who intends to do bad however, is not assumed to have any responsibility for their actions, therefore they are not at fault for any unexpected effects, whether good or bad.

This attribution of responsibility to the good moral agent, and the lack of it to the bad moral agent seems intuitive but I wonder what its cause is.

[Dunderman]

Originally Posted by Meta-Gumble

Someone who intends to do bad however, is not assumed to have any responsibility for their actions, therefore they are not at fault for any unexpected effects, whether good or bad.

Huh? That's certainly the first I ever heard of that idea. Where did you get this bizarre view from?

[SentientMeat]

Consequentialism.

[Dunderman]

Consequentalism says that the value of an action depends solely on its consequences. What does that have to do with responsibility for one's actions? And even if there is a connection, consequentalism is hardly a philosophy widespread enough that Meta-Gumble can make sweeping statements about what generally is or isn't assumed. If nothing else, the entire justice system with jails and courts certainly aims to force people with bad intentions to take responsibility for their actions.

[Scarf-Ace]

Well doing something bad is irresponsible, isn't it?

Although the common sense view says that all people are free moral agents whatever their actions are like, bad actions are really unavoidable and so there is no real freedom or responsibility.

Conversely good actions are avoidable and so there is freedom and responsibility associated with the agent.

How many times have you heard someone say of a kid who did something wrong: "He didn't know any better - its not his fault.". While an adult commiting a similar offence would be held responsible.

Well people who do good are the adults, and those who do wrong wrong are the children.

Of course the catch is that there aren't actually any adults - only big kids.

[SentientMeat]

Sorry Priceguy, that link was provided for general edification here, not as a response to your specific previous post.