TED Conversations

Hama Kimi

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Can good intentions justify bad outcomes in political decisions?

In politics, the outcome of decision can stir up more public attention than the process of making the decision. This is especially evident in the HST debate in BC.

What qualifies as good intention? Having in mind short time benefits or long term gain?

When can good intentions override the consequences, and when is the reverse true? What determines the line between the two?

Topics: politics
0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    Babken Gyarakyan

    • 0
    Jun 23 2011: the answer is absolutely not cause if that "good" intention gives bad outcomes means that politics are not enough clever to guess the exit.

  • Japjee Singh

    • 0
    Jun 23 2011: We all justify and define "good" according to our comfort and knowledge.....
    So the basis of this question resides in here.
  • thumb

    Chris Aldon 20+

    • 0
    Jun 23 2011: Firstly is good universal? Is bad?
    I'm afraid in many instances what you think is good I may find fair or unsatisfactory.

    In short term gain Vs long term gain a whole other can of worms is opened.
    What is the greatest good for the greatest number?
    Can you quantify the value of time for future goals (is it worth waiting)?

  • Bob Shingles 10+

    • +1
    Jun 22 2011: The Nazis thought their intentions good enough to justify the extermination of a people.

    For each "good" intention, the line between right and wrong and the resulting consequences shift only to be answered by the morals of strongest majority vote.
    • thumb

      Chris Aldon 20+

      • 0
      Jun 23 2011: Well said, but Nazis are a polarization on the scale, is there any input you'd share on the middle ground?

      • Bob Shingles 10+

        • 0
        Jun 23 2011: Here is a good "middle ground" example of a good intention gone bad.

        A local business owner built a specialized office for his business operations. Government regulation required that he use compact fluorescent lamps (CFL)s instead of incandescent bulbs in lighting the offices.

        CFLs are more expensive than incandescent bulbs and do not provide the same level of light.

        The business owner had to install double the CFLs to create the same amount of light as half the number of incandescent would generate.

        The energy savings were lost from the amount of lamps used and the higher cost.

        What is worst, noted the owner, the level of mercury from all the additional lamps going to the landfill is probably going to jump completely erasing any good these bulbs were supposed to convey. Recycling the CFLs will cost everyone more money in either recycling taxes or costs when properly disposing of them.

        People thought they were getting a better deal with "energy efficient" CFLs... this good intention backfired.

        Politicians representing the majority pushed regulations through because of the demand for "green" energy efficiency to save the earth. Regulations like these have only made the environment worse through good moral intentions.
Showing all 6 comments