Hi All;) .. Do you define a person by their actions or their intentions, why?;D?

Question

Explain your answer....
Thanks, for answering in advance!;-)
>>>>>>>
One of my last questions, I think...

*Have a nice day* .. :)

Thanks, Ellie;)
That is a really nice thing, to say!
I will think,it over.....
>>>>>>>>>

And, Ellie, you are the first, who even have noticed, it!
>>>>>>>>

Answer 1

1st and foremost...it will be a sad time if you quit asking questions as yours are the most 'thought' out ones on here. You don't just ramble a question...you really ask one. You will be missed Kimberly. I love reading your questions even if I don't answer them. * I define a person only by how they related with me. I cannot judge a person as to how they relate with you. They build their own merits through interacting with me. I won't judge a person by any other means. Intentions are only guess work...how can you know a person's intentions? You can't. Only by their deeds.*

Answer 2

A person is defined by his intentions. A usual, but sufficient example that justifies that, is two individuals that donate a large amount of money to a philanthropic organisation; the one for fame and the other one because he wants to help. Same action, but different intentions that picture different people. However, the problem is that most of the time in everyday life we don't have the opportunity to know the intentions behind people's actions [telepathy would fix that :) ], so actions come first and intentions second. Even justice many times works in that inverted, but false way in my opinion or fails to distinguish the good-oriented intentions behind an unlawful action.

Just to let you know, I didn't reply to your question just for the two points... : )

Answer 3

I may define a person by his actions.

Intentions are fact-based intuitions, things we aspire to happen. In the general idea, they stay properly concluded in our minds. It is dependent on our free-will then to implement that intention to action. Personally, I am keen in reading through the innermost feelings of a person or their intentions but I can't generalize from them as a person's true worth without any action being taken.
Of course we can also know a person's worth through their intentions, we have to give benefit of our doubts why their intentions are not taken into action.
But between the two, actions would allow us to truly characterize a person.
As the old saying goes "actions speak louder than words".

Answer 4

Most of the time I "define" (come to conclusions about) people by their actions rather than by their intentions.
That's because their actions are usually clear and unambiguous, but it's awfully difficult to clearly discern their intentions--most of the time we need to take guesses and make assumptions about their intentions.
But even when people tell you directly what their intentions had been, the issue then arises of whether or not to believe them (although the better we know the person, the clearer it may seem to us whether or not to believe him/her).
And even if they are being totally honest and not at all deliberately deceptive, there remain the possibilities that they themselves may have mistakenly identified (misperceived) their own intentions, or are not clear what they truly intended, or are possibly deluded about them (the latter may seem unlikely, but it's been know to happen).
So, actions are externally visible and produce an perceived effect, but intentions are really pretty slippery and abstract.
Our actions seem to give others the clearest and greatest amount of information about us--and as noble ( or despicable) as our intentions may be, it's our actions that "speak most loudly" to others.

Answer 5

Intention precedes actions. The thing is to try to understand/ discover the intention to value the actions.

Answer 6

Kant believes (and I agree) that all actions are morally ambiguous. There is no such thing as an action that is either bad or good in itself. Killing can be good or may produce a good outcome. Give everything to the poor and you give them an excuse to do nothing.

At the end of the day, you need to know why people do things and that they are willing to be responsible for their actions.

read immanual kants book if you dont know who he is he's one of the great philosphers of our time

Answer 7

I shouldn't judge but I do.
Since I do I judge based upon actions themselves.
An individuals intentions may be all well and good, but the absence of action nullifies such 'intentions'.
(I am guilty of this...)
If you believe in something, don't just say something. Take actions to achieve the desired result.

Answer 8

Judge a person’s actions by the intentions; and their intentions by their actions.

Answer 9

I define a person based on their will. Intentions are too subjective and actions aren't always reflective of a person's will.

To question Action is to ask: what did they achieve?
To question Intention is to ask: what are they trying to achieve?
To question Will to ask: what are they trying to achieve for themselves.

Answer 10

All intentions are good and advantage for the one who's doing the action for whatever purpose it may serve him, in his own perception.
and we often get our reference for what is right and wrong usually through our religious foundation our holy books, bible, quran etc. bottom-line is we cannot judge because we really don't know who is the absolute right in our references we have. so for me judgment is not important. What will be the good for the majority of human existence will i judge as good for the meantime