But pegkerr seems to be saying not just that people with hearts of stone are not leading their own lives in the potentially most fulfilling way, but that they are in some way bad for others.
This may in part (not in whole!) come down to a question of whether it is "better" (in some way) to have good intentions but as an unintended result to harm someone, or to have bad intentions but as an unintended result to help someone. Do we judge someone to be a "good" person or a "bad" person by their intentions alone, by the actions that result from the intentions, or by the result of their actions?
Do we have any evidence that "opening oneself up to the possibility of being hurt" (pegkerr's "key" to the heart of flesh, above) causes people to intend to treat their fellow humans better, to perform actions that they mean to benefit their fellow humans, or to actually benefit their fellow humans? Or do we just assume that people whose actions benefit fellow humans have "hearts of flesh" and people whose actions harm fellow humans have "hearts of stone"--the circular argument I previously referred to?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-23 07:09 am (UTC)This may in part (not in whole!) come down to a question of whether it is "better" (in some way) to have good intentions but as an unintended result to harm someone, or to have bad intentions but as an unintended result to help someone. Do we judge someone to be a "good" person or a "bad" person by their intentions alone, by the actions that result from the intentions, or by the result of their actions?
Do we have any evidence that "opening oneself up to the possibility of being hurt" (
(Reply to this)(Parent)