The Focus on Intentions
by Joseph Rowlands

The political left is focused on intentions more than actual results. If a debate over a healthcare policy happens, they will view the debate in terms of one side desiring free or cheap healthcare for people and the other side desiring that some people not be able to afford healthcare. Conservatives might argue that the unintended consequences would be significant, or that it breeds irresponsibility, or that it violates freedom, but all of this would be ignored by the left who would see these reasons as mere rationalizations to hide the immoral, and likely selfish, intentions.

Why is this? What explains this particular focus, and why are they less concerned with unintended consequences or with morally proper means to their ends?

The first explanation that can be offered is that the left accepts a particular view of morality as a kind of measure of moral goodness. It is a test, and the product of the test is moral status.  The moral status allows people to view themselves as superior to others, and to take pride in their moral superiority. Regardless, once the value is accepted, morality becomes a means of proving that you are a good person and whether you are superior to others.

The stated goal of the moral system, which is a variant of altruism, is to help others. Presumably this should mean that the measure of the moral choices is determined by how successful you are in helping others. But in most sacrificial moralities, the measure actually becomes how willing you are to sacrifice for the sake of the morality. In this case, how much are you willing to give up in order to help others. If you aren't willing to give up anything, you aren't very committed to your moral beliefs. If you're willing to make great sacrifices, you must genuinely care.

To understand this, you have to ignore what the morality claims is good (helping others), and instead examine what the morality offers its followers. It offers moral status by testing how deeply they are committed to their moral beliefs. Since the moral status is actually tied to their intentions, and not whether they actually help other people. The actual goal is status, not helping others. The status is loosely based on helping others, but it comes down to how the status is earned. What exactly is measured? Is the help that you provide others the measure of your moral status? Or is your willingness to sacrifice? It is almost always the willingness to sacrifice.

This means that the real measure of morality is not the consequences, but the intended consequences. If you sacrifice greatly, even if you don't succeed very well in helping others, you still get credit. Similarly, if you sacrifice nothing, but help many others, you gain no moral credit. A business is an example of helping others while actually profiting, and businesses do not get moral credit in an altruist morality.

Since intentions are the measure of morality, this partially explains why the left focuses on intentions above all else. For them, morality is a means of testing and judging. Moral disagreements are viewed in the light of this testing. Those who are for the altruistic policies are good, and those against are bad.

This doesn't explain everything, though. Conservatives are also altruistic, and yet they are much more focused on the actual consequences. They will oppose a feel-good policy that has unintended and undesirable (from an altruistic standard) consequences.

The easiest explanation for this difference is that conservatives are just better informed about the likely unintended consequences of the actions, and with more education, all of the altruists would be able to agree on the proper policies. But the easy explanation is not always right. The left's focus on intentions is more significant than.

In fact, it is the conservative view that is troublesome from the altruistic point of view. Why should they be concerned with results more than intentions, if their morality is judged in terms of intentions? This can be explained by the belief that morality is fundamentally impractical, and therefore to create a moral world, you need to accomplish the goals indirectly. Conservatives accept this view, and so elevate results above good-intentions. They seek to provide altruistic effects through self-interested actions.

The left doesn't accept this approach because they don't think moral credit can be gained by selfish actions. For the left, moral credit is more important than positive results. It's not enough to get good results. It has to be done for the right reasons. If you act selfishly and help others, you may be helping them, but for all the wrong reasons. In their eyes, it is better to act morally even if it leads to unintended and undesirable consequences.

Of course, they need not accept the fatalistic view that their moral actions will always lead to negative result. It is possible that they believe the negative consequences can also be avoided if people just try. This explains why one failed government policy is usually followed by others intended to fix the problems of the first. The original problems are seen as a consequence of not taking big enough steps.

This idea that the steps weren't big enough may be supported by some schools of economic thought, and they may find many other reasons for believing it. But it's important to note that their moral beliefs are not a consequence of these economic theories. The theories are chosen because of their compatibility with the moral beliefs. The moral premise is that with the right intentions and enough power, good people can accomplish their moral goals.

Once intentions become the moral currency, everything becomes a question of intentions. If we could accomplish altruistic goals with enough power, then the lack of utopia is always due to some people opposing the goals. Whether this is seen in the form of Democrats blaming big business for all of the worlds problems or communists blaming saboteurs for their lack of economic progress, the formula is always the same. The negative results are always a product of not enough will.

Discuss this Article (2 messages)