For the sake of the argument/discussion to follow we will say that there is an actual physical place called Hell, full of agonizing torment and anguish deserved and fitting for each of its inhabitants who have passed on from this empirical plane. I don't personally believe in a Hell as described, but that is an argument that is potentially inarguable and/or for another time. For the remainder of this written thought, Hell exists.

This week, because of a personal circumstance, I have been considering the claim that 'the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.' There are 2 possible interpretations: 1) good intentions + inaction = bad consequence; and 2) good intentions + faulty reasoning + ignorance + action = bad consequence. I may agree with #1 to a point.  All talk and no walk may lead to Hell, especially if an individual had been in a position to do good or to prevent harm. I would like to think though that I don't agree with scenario #2 because each one of us is saddled with an imperfect humanity that requires a certain amount of ignorance and utilizes mistakes as a learning tool; and I believe that effort as action (regardless of one's humanity) is of some value, as long as that action meets the minimum ethical requirements of legality and no physical harm. But I also know that I am currently swayed by recent personal good intentions provoking action that have created difficulty; (but were legal and caused no physical harm). I would like to (as objectively as possible) examine good intentions gone bad as described in scenario #2; and I would like to (most specifically) learn and grow from my ignorance, stubborn disobedience, arrogance, and short-sighted, (possibly) selfish action that has led to this difficulty.

I will begin by arguing against my instinct (or wishful thinking as the case may be) that good intent followed by some minimally ethical action does count for something and will mitigate harsh judgment in an afterlife (if there be one). In this Life we do allow intent to be introduced into a criminal defense in order to mitigate or even excuse otherwise unlawful action, so it is logically consistent that the same reasoning be applied to our afterlife entrance exams. But as I think about it, I'm not sure that the same logic would (or should) apply. Yes, we are imperfectly human, but an argument could be made that any eternal standards should be exceptionally high and any good intentions followed by bad consequence should focus on the consequence.

It is easy to admit that good intentions are often defined in terms of short term comfort which never stretches to ultimate (or eternal) consequence. Even when one tells one self that the resulting action is intended to benefit another, and especially when that 'other' is a loved one, we tend (in the moment) to think only that we can (heroically?) help and we take comfort in this thought and we act accordingly. To intend though is 'to have in mind a purpose or design' which implies thoughtful consideration which should reach further than the first positive thought we stumble over. But when one has thought through to a desired result and sees that result as good (or comfortable) it is easy to immediately define this as 'good intentions' and (from personal experience) we may not think further than this. Blinded by this light of 'Good' it becomes difficult for one to discern the shadows on the other side; and this contributes to a thought process that only reaches to this point of light and then utilizes the 'we'll cross that bridge when we come to it' technique for navigating the hazards beyond.

From this point in my thought I originally started whining and crying and justifying and making excuses for my ignorance, based on too many rules that are in constant flux creating a complex ambiguity that would not allow for long term vision - (a lot of words to say I was short-sighted and selfish). But upon further consideration this led me to differentiate between 'bad consequence' and 'adverse consequence' and from there to further differentiate between 'the natural order' and 'a synthetic order' of which either or both will be impacted (to varying degrees) by the consequence. (I believe) by differentiating in this manner we may set standards for admittance to Hell more accordingly. At first glance (I believe) that a bad consequence impacting the natural order, regardless of intent, should be held to the highest of standards and will contribute to the paving of that road to Hell. Excepting this one combination, to gauge any other mix of a bad or adverse consequence impacting the natural or synthetic order, one's intentions should be taken into account.

I will take a closer look...

First, definitions:

• Bad Consequence - any consequence or result of action produced by individual conscious choice, that creates more harm than benefit in the long-term or short-term with longer lasting consequence weighted appropriately.
• Adverse Consequence - any consequence or result of action caused or prompted by any significant influence beyond individual control, that creates more harm than benefit in the long-term or short-term with longer lasting consequence weighted appropriately. Life is filled with adversity, but this should never be an excuse for apathy or inaction. One must passionately exercise individual conscious choice to balance and battle those influences that originate outside of individual conscious choice yet in some way impact the individual.
• Natural Order - simply put, a matter of moral right and wrong, and the underlying systems in place that naturally uphold this order. If placed on a spectrum some may see Good at one end and Evil at the other; or Light and Dark; or Ethical Behavior and Unethical Behavior. For purposes of this discussion I see 'Natural Order' as a striving for Growth and an active avoidance of Atrophy, and I see the underlying structure as communal rules that come about naturally from a common ground of virtue.
• Synthetic Order - the struggle for power and control in an effort to convey meaning and purpose, resulting in an artificial system of administrative bureaucracy, strong-arm tyranny, and points in between. I see 'Synthetic Order' as forcing unquestioning quiescence thereby controlling the masses, encouraging divisiveness by means of an in-group ('Us') and an out-group ('Them'), and manipulating progress to fit specific agendas.

After formulation of these definitions, I still maintain that bad consequence impacting the natural order should absolutely be held to the highest standard.

I believe adverse consequence to be a part of the natural order allowing for learning and growth.

I believe adverse consequence impacting a synthetic order to be an opportunity for change.

I believe it likely that most adverse consequence impacting natural or synthetic order will lead to individual conscious choice (i.e. reaction), thus creating the potential (depending on reaction) for bad consequence as a result of adverse consequence. This shows that these differentiations are not clearcut or independent, but often overlap and flow in cause and effect relationships from action to consequence to individual conscious choice to further action to additional consequence impacting order, and on and on and on. I believe this also shows that these differentiations, (between bad and adverse consequence and between natural and synthetic order), are very useful for purposes of accountability.

I believe bad consequence impacting a synthetic order to be the one combination requiring an examination of intent. I believe a conscious effort to eliminate or change a synthetic order requires scrutiny to determine if an ethical decision-making process was utilized (as outlined in this previous post); this will assist in determining intent. I believe if good was sincerely intended, it is logical that this bad consequence /synthetic order combo should allow for this intent to mitigate judgment. I believe that consequence impacting synthetic order and immediately perceived (or perceived by specific factions) as bad may later be perceived (or perceived by opposing factions) as beneficial. I believe that a synthetic order should be recognized as such and that all individuals (and factions) should recognize, acknowledge, and respectfully allow for differing opinions regarding said synthetic order. I believe that in some circumstance legality should not be a consideration in determining intent. I believe I am ultimately responsible for any individual conscious choice that leads to action and has an impact.

To gain beneficial consequence there must be some pain. To minimize harm (i.e. bad consequence) requires foresight, compassion, and generosity. To navigate adverse consequence requires adaptability, passion, and humility.

To gain order there must be disorder. Natural order evolves to aid in individual learning and growth. Synthetic order exploits to atrophy one's ability to think and act for oneself.

Some would argue that if I or We took action based on good intentions and it resulted in bad consequence, then I or We should be excused for faulty reasoning and/or ignorance. Many of these same individuals would argue that if He, She, or They took action based on good intentions and it resulted in bad consequence, then He, She, or They should be held accountable for faulty reasoning and/or ignorance. We believe our good intentions trump their good intentions. We believe they are paving roads while we are building bridges. We believe our construction materials to be superior, our bridges to be more important, and our construction supervisor to be smarter. But I have to ask - What if we are all working for The Road Runner?

Beep, Beep...