Now, splitting off from my last thread Is it possible to know, without a doubt, what is good and what is evil? is it better to judge one according to actions or reasons? Actions are something everyone can see, and is something everyone is quick to judge. But what about the persons reasons for committing the action? Reasons are not always apparent but surely this is more important. As I said in my last thread Is one who steals to feed their family really evil? Some have asked me, well what if they lie about their reason? Of course, since reasons are something that lies within a person, we cannot always discern what they truly are. This is a fault in the process or the principle of reason over action, but non-the-less it is a principle I believe in. what are your thoughts?
Why must you limit yourself to one facet of knowledge? If you want to assess a situation or an individual, you should aim to know the full picture, which might go well beyond just action and reason. The fault lies in the initial proposition that knowing only part of the whole is enough for sound judgement. Remember the story of the five blind men and the elephant.
yes i understand, but thinking only of actions and reasons. is it better to judge by action or reason?
Why would you want to base a judgement on incomplete knowledge? That way leads to disaster. If you are going to limit yourself, then it doesn't really matter which one you choose.
The problem with your question is that your assuming it has to be one or the other. Every situation is also different so a general statement doesn't necessarily fit.
Perhaps, and we see that the system doesn't work well. But substituting reason for action as the basis for judgement would not improve things. It would still be a faulty judgement, and open to even more contention because of the more abstract nature of reason. In fact, I don't think that even reason and action are enough to reach a full understanding. I think that the first verse of the Tao sums it up best for me: the way that can be expressed is never the eternal way. I'm not much into circular arguments, so I think that I have gone as far with this as I want to. Good luck with your thread.
no, i am not assuming. i am saying : when regarding one over the other, which is better? clearly it IS better to assess the entire situation from all ends, but which is better to judge from?
I will put this simply and take the philosophy out of it. Everything is judged on an action. Without an action there is nothing to judge. After the action has occurred you may chose to factor in the reason behind it. But you are still judging the action.