Good intentions matter. Maybe...

A short essay on the question of "good intentions".

“Hanging on edges” PC: Reena Kapoor. All Rights Reserved ©2025. Instagram: @1StarDusty

Do good intentions matter? Depends.

In “24 from ‘24” reflections, I wrote about extremes (see #14, 15, 16):

IF at some point, we at least realize that both magic and morality are to be found at some messy midpoint—and in a dance that approaches that mythic middle—then we’ve got it half made.

And how to find this mythic middle? I’ve come to realize that it’s through holding seeming contradictions¹ in balance. This short essay tackles one of those. I welcome your thoughts.

Good intentions matter when judging a person, their morality, or if they’re redeemable.

This applies to human action and thought. Someone may say or do something we disagree with. It may even be hurtful—inadvertent or triggered by something else entirely. We often (not always, ought to) give them a pass. Why? Because while they may have erred, they’re often not mal-intentioned².

If we’re too quick to assign bad intentions to people, we’re not going to get very far, and we may even have deeper issues to deal with. Even the law makes such distinctions of intention e.g., premeditated murder vs. manslaughter, reason of insanity, crimes of passion, etc.

Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. — Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his journals, entry for Nov. 8, 1838

Still, there’s a deeper truth to consider.

Most people who commit evil acts often don’t set out to be evil³. They may even believe they’re doing the right thing. I’ve written about this before:

Evil came to town

But terrible consequences arrive nonetheless. So how to do we square this seeming contradiction? It begs the question: What to do when our friends and even family support policies we despise?

Perhaps by understanding that judging a person should employ an entirely different set of heuristics vs. judging a policy.

When judging an idea or policy, we should judge it for its consequences—regardless of good intentions associated/ claimed with it.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” —William Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet

A policy demanding it be judged merely on its good intentions is either foolish—or trying to fool you!

Every policy & its proponents claim to solve a real problem, bring about peace, justice, immortality…even utopia. Claims are dime a dozen. As are good intentions. What matters are the consequences—including the unintended ones, the concomitant harms.

Which is why it’s not just our right, but our duty, to call out those who act on our behalf—our institutions, government, academies, charities—whose agendas we further, fund, support; versus giving their ideas a pass based on the good intentions of the proponents. Abdication of responsibility will not protect us from the consequences.

A policy demanding it be judged merely on good intentions is either foolish OR trying to fool you! 

Which is also why our friends may mean well but the ideas they support may be ruinous.

Communist societies are always Exhibit A at the Museum of Disasters from Unintended Consequences. It all begins with the promise of an egalitarian utopia. One that never arrives. It can’t⁴. Instead, hell arrives. And once the anointed are in power, every means, including state-sponsored murder, is acceptable in the name of glorious intentions.

So what to do when we have a difference of opinion?

I propose we try to separate out the personal from the ideas and policies being proposed. In short, keep your friends because, most likely, they’re good people AND vigorously oppose the bad ideas they posit.

There are exceptions of course but for most of us in relatively free nations, this applies. Even in relatively un-free nations this applies. So keep your friends as far as possible, and as long as they’re decent human beings. If not, then still recognize the proper place of “good intentions”, support good policy with your voice, resources and votes and carry on in your own life with curiosity and courage!

Perhaps a useful tool for our polarized times?

Did this distinction in assessing intentions make sense, dear reader?

What do you contend with?

1

We may reasonably debate whether the “seeming contradictions” I discuss are really so, or simply a matter of employing proper context. Thing is, contexts get lost when people throw around soundbites, corner cases, bad analogies. Some even claim, rather self-defeatingly, that there’s no right and wrong. Thing is the”truth” is not always obvious—it’s nuanced and takes some sorting through, so often hidden among other half-truths and dangerous falsehoods. I use the term “contradiction”, albeit a little lightly, to sort through such distractions.

If those who claim there’s no right/wrong were to really live by that maxim, they would realize the danger of such “morality”. Many simply want to avoid the work and the courage it takes to sort through it all. Unfortunately, our young take such pronouncements of moral relativism seriously—with disastrous consequences.

2

See #12, 13 here.

3

During the Cultural Revolution in China, children often betrayed their families, even parents, because they believed they were doing the right thing for the greater good. Terrorists driven by nihilism and psychopathy, who act without regard for the dehumanized “other” are thankfully few. Such purveyors of hate are to be dealt with accordingly.

4

Reasons too many to enumerate—utilitarian, moral, metaphysical, epistemological…