Results first. Actions second. Intent third.

You can say your intent is anything and I’ve got no way of verifying this.

You can take good actions that make the situation worse. If noone warned you about the consequences I guess I can’t blame you.

If the result is a net positive I won’t complain too much. Even if you said you’d solve global warming by making fun of orphans and somehow made that work I’d quietly grumble about there must have been a better way but be happy that I don’t have to deal with it.

actions.

in a 9-ball game, in order to pocket the last ball, you need to call your shot. the intent is always to pocket the last ball, but calling your intent is the action that counts.

needless to say, most people suck at communicating.

If you’re interested in further reading, the terminology for what you’re describing is:

deontology (based on the action itself)
virtue ethics (based on the intent)
consequentialism (based on the outcome)

I would argue that there’s no such thing as “good” people and “bad” people, nor even actions that are inherently good or bad themselves. Someone is, in my opinion, “good” if I feel more positively than negatively about the culmination of their actions, intents, and results.

To be clear though, my opinion on this is unpopular lol

So the three main branches of ethical philosophy are deontology, which is based on right intent, consequentialism, which is based on right outcome, and virtue ethics, which is based on right action.

All three agree that you should always try to do the right thing, but disagree as to how best to determine what that is. The deontologist says that consequences are unknowable so maintaining pure intent is the best strategy. The consequentialist says that intent doesn’t matter, only the outcome, because that’s what actually affects the world. The virue ethicist notes that both criticisms are true: intent is irrelevant and consequences are unknowable, so it’s best to focus on acting in a way that’s irreproachable.

To get back to your question, I think it’s obvious how the deontologist and the consequentislist would answer, but it’s up to me to answer for the side of virtue ethics. Say a man who kicks a dog out of malice, and then the dog’s owner rushes them to the vet, where they learn the dog had a condition, easily treatable but hard to detect, that would’ve killed it in two months. Bad intent, good outcome. Deontologist hates him, Consequentialist sees a mitzvah, but me? Kicking puppies is wrong. It doesn’t matter why you’re kicking them. You can’t reasonably expect it to save the dog’s life. The action itself is contemptible.

Based on what they try to do. Negligence can be bad of course, but making honest mistakes is no ones fault. If they’re doing harmful things though, even if they can still be considered a good person, it can be a moral obligation to stop them.

Actions. I know too many people who ‘really meant to’ do that awesome thing but somehow never got around to it.

Both are based upon rationality, which is always broken.

I prefer aesthetics/feeling-of-rightness.

There are too many variables for there to be one answer.

For instance, are their intentions sincere or just claimed? If they fail to carry through, is it because of things outside of their control or just because they can’t be bothered to put out any real effort?

Or from the other end, if their actions are harmful, is that by design or inadvertent? If inadvertent, do they feel any regret or do they just treat it as too damned bad?

And so on.

Both, but on the condition it’s a bit more nuanced than that. Are we talking matters of culture shock, accidents, misunderstandings, a failure of restraint, things you regret later, things that sounded good at the time, things done under duress, things done while drunk, things meant to be humorous, etc.? Some things are circumstantial as opposed to up to any human factor, and these are more able to be looked past. But I’m also not going to yield every time someone who is drunk does something they typically wouldn’t do when sober.

You’re walking down a busy street while texting. Oops! You stepped on a kitten! Is it animal abuse? Intention is (almost) everything because it suggests what you would do if you had the means to do so, or if you felt you could get away with it.

The True Meaning of Life is Nihilism

Intentions, assuming their intentions are sincere… cause in that case, it’s just a mistake if it doesn’t work out.

Yes.

I go further. I think we are all our actions. I think our actions define us.