As opposed to starting a war for reasons that were untrue? As opposed to
listening in on millions of Americans? As opposed to supporting the removal
of Habeas Corpus?

If you're going to argue that Clinton was vile because he attempted to do
the right thing, what do you say about a bunch who lie, cheat, steal, and
prey on innoncents?????? My bet.. nothing. They're ok.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yeah, he only tried to do good. I guess that makes him vile.



Ethics of Intentions
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

There is an ethical premise that holds the evaluation of actions by
the intentions of the actions. This idea is compatible with any standard
of value. It is the claim that the consequences of an action are not
important morally. Only the desired results.

If morality is a guide to living, it can only be so if the outcome of
action moral is in your interest. By claiming that only intentions matter,
ethics becomes useless. It is left strictly as a method of evaluating the
actions of others. It cannot act a a guide to your actions.

The Ethics of Intentions is derived from the understanding that
people who intend to harm will eventually succeed. It is a way of judging
them evil by the fact that they want to harm people, not that they do. But
this is faulty. It is the impending actions that are evil. The fact that
the person is malevolent implies they will take the actions. But it is the
actions that are destructive.

A newspaper article a few years ago portrayed a mother who had
murdered her young daughter. The mother had come to believe that the world
was a place of suffering, and happiness was impossible. She killed her
daughter in order to save her from the torment of living. Under the Ethics
of Intentions, she should be praised as a hero.


Copyright © 2001 by Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands