Great point Jeff.
I agree, it seems only logical that one should attempt to interpret, if not outright ask, why another did a thing. But in the end, I must maintain that the effect is more important than the intention.
I mean this in a very critical way, as well. Consider punishing a child for doing something “wrong.” Not illegal, there are no laws yet (apart from the one I mentioned) but merely what you feel is wrong. Now, you clearly mean well, but it doen’t really matter what you mean, not to the receiver. Especially in a case like this. Only when you try to explin your intentions, or the reciever asks, is there going to be a reconciliation between act and intention. I am presenting it as a fact, basically, of co-existence.
For the record, existence exists, I exist, and other people exist, by the way. No solipsims for me.
Anyway, the cry “But that’s not what I meant!” is so common for semantic reasons alone that it seems obvious to me to somehow grasp this dichotomy of action/intention by the horns and get to it. I don’t like the result at all, but I can’t allow myself to escape it.
Not only that, interpretation of other’s actions leads to a huge struggle of morality in itself, no matter how well you know another person. Second guessing actions is so common that it largely goes unnoticed. And it is important to try to understand intentions, agreed. It is paramount to know what’s going on around you. But if it comes down to accepting what happened or guessing why, I say always choose the latter.
To be able to correctly interprt actions the actor must think like you do, at least in as far as the action itself is concerned. To be able to accurately interpret actions, the views must be similar, and you must be aware of the differences. Most of the time, however, questioning actions always has as a result questioning the actor. Unless the action was very simple this leads to a whole regression of how this person views such-and-such. At least, to me it does. I always think about things to the umpteenth degree of pickiness. Tend to overthink all problems, but I also don’t have many problems, so what can I say other than it works for me.
I also contest the idea that a philosophy should try to take into account other’s intentions unless there is an absolute set of morals. Otherwise, its all detective work. I try to allow for the maximum number of personal morals to exist independant of mine, but I seriously doubt that there is even one thing that everyone agrees on. Besides that, even my detective work is usually seen as hostile, at least by some people. I put words in people’s mouth because they aren’t saying anything or are too vague, and then I get accused of strawman arguments. And that’s fine, because that is how they see it. I can try and change that here, if anyone reads it, but in the end I accept that how I am to anyone BUT myself is exactly how I am perceived. Truly depressing to someone who loves to think 
So, to summaraize for Tris:
- no absolute set of morality exists
- no individual person has any inherent claim on any other person
- “Good” is defined as voluntary co-existence. “Bad” is defined by unwelcomed actions.
- A person always agrees with him/herself.
- Appearance outweighs thoughts-about-appearance; or, the definition of “truth” is observation. (it is, of course, an observation in itself to try and find out what the motive behind an action was through external questioning; internal questioning is never as valid)
I think that’s all I’ve said so far. I cannot demonstrate conclusively that I exist, that the universe exists, that anyone but me exists, etc etc. I am asuming a sort of standard view of reality above. Clearly, since I can’t even show that I exist for sure, I can say nothing about god. 
