I think intentions matter more than results. After all, good intentions are meant to produce good results. Without the proper intentions, the wanted results seem unlikely. The response of the world to Nazi genocide shows a case where certain intentions created other results that were indeed “good.” In the case of World War II, it’s not that the world response to Nazi aggression was wrong, or had bad intentions, it’s just that they reacted at a later time. The world went in with the intentions of putting a stop to Nazi aggression, and as a result stopped the genocide of World War II. So is the world worth of shame for not intervening earlier? After World War I, it makes sense why the world was staying out of foreign affairs, but I don’t think this justifies not acting in effort to stop inhumane atrocities.
In modern times, it’s easier to judge our acts by our intentions, because the results aren’t always fully played out. In the Middle East, for example, we brought in forces in an effort to set up democratic governments. Our intentions were right, but the wanted results seem intangible. Instead, we’ve caused the death of many soldiers and civilians.
My Blog List
-
-
Cold War Revised12 years ago
-
Cold War again.....12 years ago
-
Origins of the Cold War Revisited12 years ago
-
The Evolution of your Thoughts12 years ago
-
Importance of the Agadir Crisis13 years ago
-
testing, testing20 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I think that it really depends on the situation whether intentions or results are better. Going into a situation with unrealistic or bad intentions are going to produce bad results, but what if we went into a situation with good intentions but ended up having bad results. Were probably not going to go into a similar situation if we knew bad results were going to come of it. I guess it seems like both are equally important because we learn from the results of the intentions had.
ReplyDeleteGood point Abby. Let's think of case examples. The first thing I think of is Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations. Most consider Wilson very naive to reality, that nations could avoid war through diplomacy. Still, the League of Nations failed, evidently proving Wilson wrong and naive. Or does this prove him wise and ahead of his time?
ReplyDeleteAlso, Nicole brings up a good example in Iraq. Though we weren't primarily interested in establishing democracy because we believe in freedom, I believe it was more of an effort to create stability in the region. Regardless, democracy is well-intended, but the results remain questionable at best.