"The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_t ... intentions

I'm curious about this commonly used proverb, it seems to disagree with MBT at its root. It might just be a matter of semantics - words are tricky. According to MBT, good intentions usually yield good actions, which always yields positive results. Bad intentions usually yield bad actions, which always yields negative results. This seems intuitively obvious to me, but then I wonder where this proverb came from.

This proverb seems to be implying that a good intent can lead to a negative result - and not just occasionally. "A road to hell" seems to imply a sort of continuous and dependable trend. Another alternative form is:

"hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works"

This seems to emphasize that doing is the most important - not the being.

Could an explanation be that imperfect information about a situation can lead to bad results, even though you had good intentions? We rarely ever have all the information to make a "safe" decision (be graceful with uncertainty). I think Tom counters this by saying your internal environment will always benefit (entropy reduction) by a good intent - even if the external environment didn't (due to randomness, imperfect information, etc.)

Another explanation might be ego. It tends to color what we think is a "good intent" when it really isn't. If the motivation is based in selfishness, your ego might convince yourself that it is a good intent when it is really not. The negative feedback (road to hell) is then explained.

From Wikipedia:
The saying is thought to have originated with Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who wrote, "L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs" (hell is full of good wishes and desires).

If this truly was the origin of the idiom, then I think the ego explanation starts to become more valid. Wishes and desires are based in ego.

The wikipedia article cites some studies done to try and see if there is any truth to the proverb - with mixed results. The studies don't really seem to interpret what a "good intention" is in the same context MBT does (entropy reduction for AUM - LOVE).

_________________
Mike

Tom in MBT does not say that good intentions always result in good results. More specifically, he says that our actions are better judged by our Intent as opposed to the results. If we act out of good Intent, then we have acted properly, even if chance, lack of correct and full information or some other aspect of the situation resulted in a less than desired result. There may be a positive correlation between good Intent and good results, but the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley as Robert Burns said. There is no certainty of good results from good actions or good Intent.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and such like phrases has become a fable or common saying. It does not have a clear meaning and no relationship to MBT which places no reality on the existence of hell. So certainly no linkage to Intent as understood in MBT.

Actually my understanding of this has always been that the proper interpretation was that good intentions, by not being carried out, were what was being referred to in this saying. Then it makes more sense as that we are condemned by our good intentions which stay only in intention form and not placed into action. I just didn't see much value to saying it but since an attempt at understanding is still being carried out, I add my 2 centavos worth.

Ted

Interesting question Mike...

I suspect that it is, as used these days, mostly after-the-fact rationalization of why well meaning intentions can have undesired results.

It does occur .... a hundred years ago here in the states, we had an organization called the WTCU the Womens' Christian Temperance Movement and they were pretty powerful, ultimately getting through an amendment to the US constitution to ban the use of alcohol. The intent was to get everyone to sober up and improve the conduct of society in general. It was a disaster. The liquor still flowed, no matter how bad it was, it created a breeding ground for any number of organized crime operations, and made contempt for the law much less frowned upon. Gangland wars resulted, and when the amendment was repealed after a decade and change, the mobsters had to move on to other activity, criminal of course.

Another example was the Americans' notion of fighting communism abroad to keep democracy safe. The Korean war brought with it a certain listlessness in national pride with some groups... the Vietnam war deeply demoralized many Americans. Both were ostensibly fought for good reasons... no-one that I know of now thinks that Vietnam was a good idea, and even Robert Macnamara, the war's chief advocate, said in the years before his death that it was wrong and so was he.

Too, Bernard was writing just as the dark ages were winding up, and quoting wiki again:

"The last years of Bernard's life were saddened by the failure of the crusaders, the entire responsibility for which was thrown upon him."

But logically, the proverb is weak... What IS the road to heaven supposed to be paved with? BAD intentions? LOL, ....I don't think that that would work. The road to limbo might be paved with NO intentions, maybe, and the road to purgatory might be paved with <looks out window/> Oh wait! We're already there! </window>

-Montana

One could feasibly translate it as:

"The path of devolution is paved by the illusions of the ego"

The idea being that the ego often tells us that what we are doing is valid, "good", or justified; while in reality it is selfish and based on fear. However, with honestly and humility toward self, the ego becomes transparent and such a path falls apart.

Or something like that :)

_________________
-"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find... you get what you need"

I have considered this phrase as recently as this week. And I do consider it to be, possibly, a play on words, at times. It can also be a convenient reprimand used by "holier than thou" priests and pastors, and I HAVE heard a priest say it. And there must be times when a person truly believes their intentions are good. Like when fear makes a person build walls for their own "protection", and those same walls become your "prison".
But also there may be times when good intentions can possibly lead a person into the darkness of conflict, poverty, and possible pain. Good intentions may cause a FWAU to go into dangerous places in order to help another, with no thought of "self" I myself have experienced some dark places where I, normally would never want to return to, but was willing to walk because I needed to get someone else out of a bad place.

2 examples that come to mind are 2 of my favorite movies: "What Dreams May Come" and "The Razors Edge" ...2 stories of good intentions leading to hell, one literally, and the other figuratively.

There is another saying that I have been considering: "No good deed goes unpunished". This seems to be completely "self serving" with no basis in spiritual growth.

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

Actually, there may be some truth to that one... it happens that when you try to intervene for someone who is 'learning a lesson' or getting comeuppance for bad karma that you can get zonked for it, just as a bystander.

Another one I like is:

"Cast your bread on the waters
And what do you get?
Another hard luck story
and your bread gets wet!"

it would be a great opening line for a faux 12-bar 3 chord blues spoof

-Montana

The MBT meaning for "Intent" has a different meaning from "intentions" in this old saying.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

ZONKED? LOL, I think that happened to me once :-P

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

This is my understanding too,

Also the concept aligns somewhat the how one can be negligent by acting out of caring for others, with continuously negative results. Doing such will not be truly caring.

Part of the "Moral Code" made by Tom's son Kristopher:

"Obviously this leads to the dangerous problem of someone continuing to act out of caring in similar situations which continuously leads to unfortunate results. Thus follows our second ethical rule which is easily derived from the first ethical rule . That is: to act seemingly out of caring in a negligent manner is truly not to act with the intent of caring at all. For example, consider a very wealthy person, who wants, purely out of an intention of caring, to help those poorer then himself. To accomplish this, he widely advertises (say, on a national level and a month or so in advance) that he would, at a certain future date and time, drop 100 million dollars in 100 dollar bills in the center of a major industrial city for the sole benefit of the less fortunate citizens of that city. Imagine that due to lack of understanding he did not realize the possibility that such an act might cause a violent riot by those not adhering to the moral code. If it never occurs to him that his action would result in a great surge of abhorrently immoral behavior or that it would not actually be in the overall best interests of the less fortunate residents of the city, and no one deems it necessary to warn him of such an outcome thus it is not within his reality that such an outcome could generate itself, in other words he was completely naïve, then he would have acted morally regardless of the violent, destructive, and unfortunate outcome of the intended caring. Given that his action did in fact cause a riot or turn out negatively; if he then repeats this act again in the same way with the same intention, once again purely out of "caring," without having learned from his past experience the wealthy man would then become negligent and therefore immoral regardless of his supposedly caring intent. If by his knowledge and experience he understood that a terrible outcome was perhaps probable and yet he took this action foolishly hoping for a good response, he would be acting negligently and therefore immorally no matter that he intended benefit others his negligent attitude did not produce caring. Obviously it is not possible for a rational being to predict the outcome of every possible situation. Consequently, if one intends to act morally in a situation in which they have no experience it would be morally required of them to proceed cautiously down whatever path they perceive to be the most caring so as not to be negligent. One truly acting out caring must be cautious (to an extent that is both warranted and practical) in the implementation of one's caring when the potential results are not well known or understood to the one intending to act morally. This example was used primarily to explain the second rule of the ethical code for it would be nearly impossible for a fully rational adult to be ignorant of such an outcome without being willfully ignorant and thus negligent in a modern environment. It is a moral responsibility of each entity to carefully assess the overall affects of his or her actions. Thus our moral code now has two rules: 1) one must act out of the intention of caring for others, and 2) one cannot be negligent and truly caring." viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2944

S_S, I was thinking about Moral Code too.

Just a thought. This proverb is a warning to a sinner. You do your best, but only god knows where you will end up, as a result of your sins. This way it is not related to MBT's view of intent. I have a poor history knowledge, but it seems to me, that back to a time of this proverb origination human free will and intent were considered to be under god's will, control and power, and only if you disobey god's will, you may have you own intent. It could be a good intent, but a disobedience to god is an eval act and a sin.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

Good answers everyone - I pretty much agree with all of you.

Ted, I failed to distinguish between external results and internal results along with absolute right and wrong versus relative right and wrong.

That is to say, a good intent (absolutely right) will usually lead to right actions that might lead to bad external results but will always lead to good internal results (improvements to your QoC).

_________________
Mike

Another way in which our "good intentions" may be paving a road to "Hell"


http://www.spiritual-endeavors.org/peace/a-good.htm

What we resist persists...

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

This thread has ran through my mind several times with the thought that intentions in this saying means no action, JUST intentions, and that is the issue. Only having good intentions, and not going further.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

I agree Bette. But in the MBT sense, can there be an intention with no action? I've always thought the two went together automatically.

_________________
Mike

Probably not, but then that quote wasn't intended to apply to MBT, probably. MBT uses big "I" Intention.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.