The value of intent

[averygoodun42]

Okay, so in fandom it seems that magic is dark when the intent is to harm. What about good acts with dubious intents? For example, James saving Snape from Remus. Let's assume that James was not in on the prank, not in a serious manner, anyway. (There's little doubt that he helped come up with the idea, but then, how often do people say things they don't really mean, like "I could just kill him!" My guess is that he and Sirius (and Peter?) were thinking up ways to tease/torture Snape, and then Sirius got zapped by Snape and decided to take it as a real option. For argument's sake, lets say that's what happened.)

So James' intent was not completely pure. Yes, he (probably) didn't want Snape to die, but he was also smart enough to realize that if Snape were attacked by Remus, Remus would be executed, Sirius would be expelled and probably imprisoned and he himself would be censured or expelled as well.

Or another example, say Snape does something altruistic purely to impress Hermione. That something good comes out of his actions (other than impressing Hermione) isn't the reason for him doing it, but it had good consequences nonetheless.

Does that make him a reluctant do-gooder or just manipulative and sneaky?

At what point do motivations (not actions) spoil or invalidate the results?

Comments

[shiv5468.livejournal.com]

Surely no one's intent can ever be pure. It would always be tinged with self interest, or fear of being thought a coward, social pressure, all sorts of things.

When James saves Snape he might not be doing it for the best of reasons, but he does not want to harm him.

I don't think that there are spells that depend on Good Intent though that would be an interesting bunny - Snape can only perform a spell if his intent is pure, and it isn't because he fancies Hermione,,,

[scatteredlogic.livejournal.com]

I think Shiv's right. There are very few things that people do out of purely unselfish motives. Even doing something nice usually has some hidden benefit for the person doing it. (People who give to charity usually feel good about themselves, for example.)

I think the difference boils down to whether you're doing something for someone else, and it has the nice side effect of benefiting you in some way or whether you're doing something for yourself, and it has the nice side effect of benefiting someone else.

[evieeros.livejournal.com]

I'm tempted to dig out a paper I wrote on altruism ages ago. *digs* Yikes! I can tell I wrote this YEARS ago. Hmm, there are however a few tidbits worth sharing. In the paper I define 4 types of motivation for psychological altruism: seeking approval, seeking to uphold moral beliefs, to assuage feelings of guilt, because of feelings of empathy or sympathy. In the conclusion I said "Yet perhaps the real question should be: does it matter whether altruism exists or not? Are good deeds any less good because they are performed in order to receive praise or some other reward? [seems to be what your post is asking, yes?] These actions are not altruistic and yet they still contribute to the greater good. In fact, perhaps because the good deed is rewarding for the helper and the victim, such non-altruistic acts are instead better than acts of sheer altruism. [...]".

Bottom line, I would say that good acts performed in the name of evil are still good and vice versa. Which probably explains my issues with organized religion.

Now, where motivation comes into it... eh. I would say empathy is the purest 'good' motivation. Here's an example again from that ancient paper: "Batson designed an experiment to test the motivations of empathy and guilt on altruistic acts. Volunteers watched a subject receive shocks that were mild but painful. Soon they were given the opportunity to either help the subject by taking the shocks themselves, or leave immediately. Batson found that those who were highly empathetic towards the victim chose instead to take the shocks themselves. He also found that when told the subject had not actually been receiving shocks the volunteers even though deprived of the opportunity to help were pleased even though they did not personally do the good deed (Kitzinger). Empathy rather than guilt formed the basis for the altruistic acts. True altruists do not care whether the act is performed by them, only that the good deed occurs and the victim is helped."

Haha and this last quote spawns an interesting plot bunny, anyone want to adopt? "Incidentally, those who have the greatest empathy towards the victims also appear to be the most positive. “People who feel in control of what happens in their lives and who have little need for approval from others are the most likely to help others” (Kohn). These people are acting on the basis of what is commonly known by several sources as the “Feel good, do good” motivator."

[evieeros.livejournal.com]

Yikes! Holy long-ass reply Batman!

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Interesting, and not far off from what I've informally pondered on this subject. I'll try to write a proper response tomorrow when my brain is working a little better.

But thanks!

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

LOL! But that's not nec. a bad thing!

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

No, but if say, Snape does the good thing only to impress Hermione, and thereby mis... er... you know, (brain just died) presents himself falsely (misrepresents! God, that took too long to think of!), would that good deed still acceptable in Hermione's eyes (assuming she found out)? Would that even be considered a good deed if the intent is solely to misrepresent his character as good, despite the actual good committed?

Okay, brain really did die, so shall stop nattering at you now.

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

Huh? Little doubt James helped come up with the idea for the prank? I wasn't aware of that, I've always gotten the impression it was Sirius' idea alone...

[septentrion1970.livejournal.com]

That's a tough question. Intent is at the beginning of the action and is about the person who has the intention. So I'll think it'd make your Severus a manipulative and sneaky person whose actions have unexpected good results.