How Far Can Good Intent Go in Excusing Bad Actions?

No knowing that their intent was good may help you to empathize with the situation and understand it better but that doesn't mean you have to condone and accept their behavior or the consequences of their actions. The outcome should be the key measure. I remember an adult saying, 'this hurts me more than it hurts you,' but this statement is subjective and does not justify poor behavior.

The Parameters of Good and Bad

Let's dive deeper into the parameters of 'good' and 'bad.' According to Google definitions:

Good: To be desired or approved of, having the qualities required for a particular role, righteousness, or benefit or advantage to someone or something. Bad: Of poor quality or a low standard, unpleasant or unwelcome.

These definitions are subjective and dependent on individual values, so we must find a more objective approach to describe what constitutes 'bad' actions. A better definition might be:

a deterrent or disadvantage to someone or something

This definition is more clear and can be broken down into specific parameters, such as:

A deterrent or disadvantage to someone or something

The Stump and the Roots

Let's redefine the question: How far can benefit or advantage to someone or something intent go in excusing a deterrent or disadvantage to someone or something actions?

Benefit to entity Intent Deterrent to entity Actions

This simplifies the question but still leaves the crux of the issue with the individual's perception and understanding. In theory, a person may use cognitive dissonance to justify past actions, allowing them to view uncomfortable situations as consistent with their beliefs.

Cognitive Dissonance and Dogma

Cognitive dissonance is the theory that individuals seek consistency among their beliefs, opinions, and attitudes, and will try to decrease the amount of dissonance. This can manifest in misguided individuals who practice cognitive dissonance to protect their dogma from evolving. For example, a dogma that preaches purity tests can create a 'we' vs. 'them' mentality, leading to virtue signaling and the rejection of other views.

Leaders like Stalin use this method, manipulating followers into accepting their actions as justifiable for the greater good. When a leader has control, enforcing their will, critical thinking often takes a back seat. This dynamic can lead to self-justification and the excusal of bad actions under the guise of a good intention.

Conclusion

Human beings are full of destructive forces but are also equipped with tools and abilities to justify their actions for personal benefit. The limits of how far one can excuse themselves are yet to be defined and may never be fully reached. As seen in various historical and contemporary contexts, the tendency to manipulate and justify actions for the greater good is a recurring theme.