What makes a character more evil: actions or intent?

[sageoftruth]

Snip

I see. I'm not sure exactly what you were responding to. As I said, I don't actually believe in Heaven. I was just using this to distinguish two different schools of thought: The concept of "evil" based on one's past actions, and the concept of "evil" based on one's current disposition. Simply put, who is more evil, the person who committed atrocities in the past but regrets it, or the person who wants to commit atrocities?
I'm only using the word "evil" in this case to stay relevant to the main subject: "What makes a character more evil... etc. etc."

So, if your intent was to disprove the biblical concept of morality, I'm afraid you've wasted your time, because I never believed it in the first place.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I see. I'm not sure exactly what you were responding to. As I said, I don't actually believe in Heaven. I was just using this to distinguish two different schools of thought: The concept of "evil" based on one's past actions, and the concept of "evil" based on one's current disposition. Simply put, who is more evil, the person who committed atrocities in the past but regrets it, or the person who wants to commit atrocities?

Right, but evil compared to what? This is kind of important ... because it depends on what is being evaluated here. It can't simply be a deontological value statement if you have an idea of regret because you're making the argument that this person places emphasis on consequence, not some categorical imperative that must be followed regardless of the pain it causes.

And this is principally why I elevated Gaunter as being less """evil""". Because, essentially, it is in his nature and he doesn't (always) force people to accept a fate that he spun himself. A person that does awful things in the name of good things, regardless of the degree of regret, is always going to be worse than a being that does awful things because arguably they're not even human. You don't blame the scorpion for stinging your hand when you try to pick it up.

One of the reasons why in my first post I alluded to Gaunter being as if the fae from pagan mythology. It's not necessarily """evil""" when they ultimately make mortals suffer. The fae are not evil when they accidentally enamour the heart of the Pale Knight that they wither away by the lake's edge for all their days, wondering when that lady of the Fair Folk may return to enchant his now numbed soul again. It's not """Evil""" when they take a lonely mortal soul, and bewilder them in some Hyperboreal wonderland of enchantment ... only to return them back to their now even grayer, darker, more miserable world for having seen such a wondrous one they can never be a part of again.

Gaunter is like that. He offers a pact ... the other guy kills you or conscripts you if you areable, and butchers everyone who disagrees with him. Gaunter is, in all manner ofspeaking, less """evil""". This is kind of the problem with artificially extracting intention from action. Both represent awill to power ... your intentions are inevitably actions youcan will into being ... your actions are therefore decided unless the choice to act intentfully have been taken away.

If my intention is to 'start a war', I could be some vizier suggesting it to a king, I could be that king, or I could be that general that the king tells me to draw up a campaign plan and instead voice no revolt against the idea. The level of guilt is determined solely by the capacity of one's agency to influence.

 

[Legomaniac91_v1legacy]

I'd say a character's actions can make them more evil than their intentions. Intentions are just dreams and fantasies about how you want something to play out, completely harmless to anyone but yourself. Its only when a person acts on said fantasies that they become harmful to others. In addition, its a person's actions that will be remembered more often than their intentions.

A perfect example in fiction would be the Inquisition from Warhammer 40k. Their intentions seem simple and noble: Keep humanity and the Imperium safe from hostile aliens and the forces of Chaos. However, 9 times out of 10 their actions to achieve that goal wind up killing just as many of their own people as their enemies would. Even then, they often take the stupidest, most convoluted methods in order to do it! Just saved a planet from a horde of Chaos demons? Sterilize the survivors and work them to death! Somebody jacked off with some barbed wire and accidentally summoned a demon or two? Nuke the continent! Want to get your hands on a Genestealer hybrid? Deliberately infect a planet, then send your acolyte in to get captured, raped, and impregnated with one and send in a Deathwatch kill team to retrieve her!

 

[sageoftruth]

I see. I'm not sure exactly what you were responding to. As I said, I don't actually believe in Heaven. I was just using this to distinguish two different schools of thought: The concept of "evil" based on one's past actions, and the concept of "evil" based on one's current disposition. Simply put, who is more evil, the person who committed atrocities in the past but regrets it, or the person who wants to commit atrocities?

Right, but evil compared to what? This is kind of important ... because it depends on what is being evaluated here. It can't simply be a deontological value statement if you have an idea of regret because you're making the argument that this person places emphasison consequence, not some categorical imperative that must be followed regardless of the pain it causes.

And this is principally why I elevated Gaunter as being less """evil""". Because, essentially, it is in his nature and he doesn't (always) force people to accept a fate that spun themselves.

A person that does awful in the name of good things, regardless of the degree of regret, is always going to be worse thana being thatdoesawfulthings because arguably they're not human. You don't blame thescorpion for stinging your hand when you try to pick it up.

Ah, I see. That is a good point. If I am to base good and evil off of anything it would be empathy. When people ask how morality can exist without religion, "Empathy" is my usual response. I could go on about that, but I'm probably preaching to the choir in this case, so I'll just move on.

Still, empathy aside, this is a tricky one for me. Who is worse: The person who works around his empathetic nature to harm others, or the person who has no empathy? You mentioned the scorpion, but a scorpion stings for its own survival, either by attacking potential predators, or by killing prey. Malice or sadism is never a factor.

Before I go any further, could you tell me who Gaunter is? I couldn't find him in your previous post, and don't know who he is. Whoever he is, I feel like making him the focus of our discussion could help me reach a satisfying conclusion.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Ah, I see. That is a good point. If I am to base good and evil off of anything it would be empathy. When people ask how morality can exist without religion, "Empathy" is my usual response. I could go on about that, but I'm probably preaching to the choir in this case, so I'll just move on.

Still, empathy aside, this is a tricky one for me. Who is worse: The person who works around his empathetic nature to harm others, or the person who has no empathy? You mentioned the scorpion, but a scorpion stings for its own survival, either by attacking potential predators, or by killing prey. Malice or sadism is never a factor.

Before I go any further, could you tell me who Gaunter is? I couldn't find him in your previous post, and don't know who he is. Whoever he is, I feel like talking around him specifically could help me reach a satisfying conclusion.

Gaunter is the guy in the OP ... he was principally one of the examples given about intent and actions. Though my argument isyou can't separate the two. Particularly when one is a force of nature, immutable as the storm and has rules to how they can act and operate. You can (and do) beat him at his own game, and frankly his acronym is G.O.D for Christ's sake (not exactly subtle).

As per my fae example before in my first post and in my edit, I liken Gaunter to the fae. Beings that are meant to be inhuman. Have inhuman values. Have inhuman rules of being. Who are therefore beyond conventional ideas of morality, because without intent you cannot measure morality. The fae are not evil when they make mortals suffer. The Fair Folk are not evil when a mortal falls in love with one and withers away to death waiting forbut a glance of her once more from the lake's shore. Intention is to one's will to power. The only time when intention is irrelevant to justice is when one's plans are, for lack of choicer words, utterly cocked up or purely insane.

You can't arbitrarily separate intention and actions. People do not act mindlessly, and 'evil' is a dumb concept. I can totally foresee a good king killing a handful of people to make a world of good. Like hunting down bandits harassing some towns. It's a matter of diminishing returns, and that's how it should be viewed as.

Eredin, regardless of whether he believes or not in whatever he is doing, regardless of the degree of guilt, is worse than Gaunter... I' still try to kill both of them, but I will harbour far more of a grudge against a self-styled monster over an actual inhuman creature with only a questionable degree over their will to power in whatever their actions are. While Gaunter isawful, and bad ... Eredin is not only a bigger threat, but one that I can accurately judge is being a worse monster by dint of shared humanity.

He is a greater violator of any ethicalcode you might uphold ... but as per my scorpion allegory, Gaunter is awful but at least inhumanly awful. If you can arbitrarily separate actions from intent, lower animals are evil and the bigger the predator, the more immoral they are.

Even if you make the argument that Eredin 'will stop' at a certain point and everything will be fucking roses, why would, or should, anyone believe that and how does that make it any less monstrous and necessary to be put down?

 

[Vigormortis]

While I wouldn't call myself feverently against thought crime, I'm against it. Where do you stand on speech? It is an action but many people (freedom of speechers in particularly) think that it doesn't count to any crime. I.e. saying you kill someone is part of the evidence towards murder but I've had some people argue against it being able to be used as evidence because freedom of speech (as in freedom from prosecution from the government).

Speech, in many ways, is an action. Ones speech can be drawn from their intent, but unlike intent, it can directly instigate action, in the first or third person.

Someone can think to themselves, "I wish I could kill that guy", but I wouldn't view it as a crime. However, if someone says to another, "We should kill that guy.", I would consider that a crime. Or rather, if an actionable crime is committed, that speech is evidence of the crime and the intent.

I guess you might say speech, within the context of actions taken, is a linkable path between ones actions and ones intent.

So is speech a crime? Depends on the context and circumstances. Do I believe all speech should be protected? Absolutely. Do I believe all speech should be free from criticism? Absolutely not.

 

[Vigormortis]

Sometimes the only options available are "evil" and it comes down to picking the lesser of two evils. The person who has to make that choice has to live with both the guilt and being judged as evil by people such as yourself.

Absolutely. And I'd expect nothing less were I the one who had to make that choice.

Evil isn't a cut-and-dry, black-and-white thing to me. It, as a concept, is very nebulous. Very...fluid. One person's villain is another's hero.

If ones actions or choices directly harm another against their will, I consider that action evil. But, as with most things in life, there is a very large spectrum of evil, from the mild(pranking someone) to the grotesque(committing genocide).

I also do not believe evil is free from the confines of time. Someone can commit an evil action but not be inherently evil themselves. In fact, I do not believe 'evil' or 'good' are necessarily states of being. They are concepts that can be applied to actions but a person is never good nor evil.

 

[sageoftruth]

Ah, I see. That is a good point. If I am to base good and evil off of anything it would be empathy. When people ask how morality can exist without religion, "Empathy" is my usual response. I could go on about that, but I'm probably preaching to the choir in this case, so I'll just move on.

Still, empathy aside, this is a tricky one for me. Who is worse: The person who works around his empathetic nature to harm others, or the person who has no empathy? You mentioned the scorpion, but a scorpion stings for its own survival, either by attacking potential predators, or by killing prey. Malice or sadism is never a factor.

Before I go any further, could you tell me who Gaunter is? I couldn't find him in your previous post, and don't know who he is. Whoever he is, I feel like talking around him specifically could help me reach a satisfying conclusion.

Gaunter is the guy in the OP ... he was principally one of the examples given about intent and actions. Though my argument isyou can't separate the two. Particularly when one is a force of nature, immutable as the storm and has rules to how they can act and operate. You can (and do) beat him at his own game, and frankly his acronym is G.O.D for Christ's sake (not exactly subtle).

As per my fae example before in my first post and in my edit, I liken Gaunter to the fae. Beings that are meant to be inhuman. Have inhuman values. Have inhuman rules of being. Who are therefore beyond conventional ideas of morality, because without intent you cannot measure morality. The fae are not evil when they make mortals suffer. The Fair Folk are not evil when a mortal falls in love with one and withers away to death waiting forbut a glance of her once more from the lake's shore. Intention is to one's will to power. The only time when intention is irrelevant to justice is when one's plans are, for lack of choicer words, utterly cocked up or purely insane.

You can't arbitrarily separate intention and actions. People do not act mindlessly, and 'evil' is a dumb concept. I can totally foresee a good king killing a handful of people to make a world of good. Like hunting down bandits harassing some towns. It's a matter of diminishing returns, and that's how it should be viewed as.

Eredin, regardless of whether he believes or not in whatever he is doing, regardless of the degree of guilt, is worse than Gaunter... I' still try to kill both of them, but I will harbour far more of a grudge against a self-styled monster over an actual inhuman creature with only a questionable degree over their will to power in whatever their actions are. While Gaunter isawful, and bad ... Eredin is not only a bigger threat, but one that I can accurately judge is being a worse monster by dint of shared humanity.

He is a greater violator of any ethicalcode you might uphold ... but as per my scorpion allegory, Gaunter is awful but at least inhumanly awful. If you can arbitrarily separate actions from intent, lower animals are evil and the bigger the predator, the more immoral they are.

Even if you make the argument that Eredin 'will stop' at a certain point and everything will be fucking roses, why would, or should, anyone believe that and how does that make it any less monstrous and necessary to be put down?

I see. That makes sense. Honestly, it feels like it's been nagging at the edge of my mind since this thread started. Thanks for shining some light on it. So, we cannot really compare the two, because to measure them, we must compare action to intent, and thus a person without intent cannot be judged. That's the jist of it right?

 

[Vigormortis]

How?

Regardless, that's not thoughtcrime.

Passing actionable judgement on someone based solely on what they think? That's, by definition, thought crime. Or rather, a subset of thought crime as a concept.

Thoughtcrime assumes you have no right to the freedom of thought.

What then is taking action against someone for their thoughts? Something you've implied should occur. You baffle me, sir.

Moreover it's all kinds of wrong to ignore fatal intentions of a person and do nothing about it.

This is just contradictory to what you said before.

Also, when did I ever imply ones intentions should be ignored?

It is actually incumbent in any court system to assuage the question of motive.

Of course it is, AFTER a crime has been committed.

But surely there is a difference between me shooting someone my government has told me to shoot (intention of shooting) anf some random spree killer shooting people in a school? I would even add it's important to consider why returning soldiers are also more likely to be violent than ordinary civilians.

Of course, but again, this is AFTER the action was committed.

Regardless... neither of these is representative of 'thoughtcrime' when you evaluate them. It's merely criminology... the study of crime.

Each of these are considered af...I'm not repeating myself.

What would be actual thoughtcrime is doing as you wrote in your post. Refusing to assess why humans commit crime.

Uh...what? I never said that. Did you even read my post or did you just notice a few buzzwords and then presume my position? Because this is getting mildly irritating.

Refusing yo see the reasons behind it. Refusing to allow others to question whether the actions of s person couldn't be avoided by having a better society and that it is incumbent on us to remember that humans are rarely simply born as monsters.

Jesus christ, dude. Did you even mean to quote me? I never said ANY THING like this.

Or are you making thr argument thst questioning current governance and social structures as they are is itself thoughtcrime?

Okay, this has completely flown off the rails. You HAVE to have meant to quote someone else. Holy shit.

I just...I genuinely don't understand how you got any of that from what I posted. It boggles my mind. I can't even begin to think of a way to broach this discussion. You've so thoroughly misunderstood my position, so purposefully straw-manned me, that I feel like I'm attempting to defend someone else's position.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I see. That makes sense. Honestly, it feels like it's been nagging at the edge of my mind since this thread started. Thanks for shining some light on it. So, we cannot really compare the two, because to measure them, we must compare action to intent, and thus a person without intent cannot be judged. That's the jist of it right?

They can be judged. But due diligence being a person that had zero intentions to kill a person shouldn't be called a murderer when compared to a person that killed someone with malie and premeditation. They are world's apart. That being said, as any utilitarian should note ... it's still better that person who had no intention to slay a person still face punishment.

You have to measure just how much willful agency and culpability there was. A drunk driver or someone on a cell phone should be punished more than someone who was displaying better judgment, even if the results are still a dead person they ran over. Ditto, somebody who is absolutely barking mad has somewhat less 'guilt' of a slaying of a person than someone who murdered another for their insurance money.

Intention is motive.

If your significant other gave you a peck and infected you with the disease that would later claim your life unknowingly, they didn't murder you. You might feel differently if they had planned thatall along, however.

 

[Ryallen]

Let's say that I save a million people. Let them go on to live happy and productive lives. And even make sure that they, and their progeny, are secure after the fact. But what if my intentions are that I want to rule those people and be given their praise? I'm not acting for some sort of good will or philanthropy, but to fulfill my own narcissism and gain power for the sake of having power which I have no intention of sharing or giving up.

Am I good or evil?

Let's say that I kill an entire civilization. Eradicate them all. Down to the women, children, and even the animals. Erase every trace of their people. Figuratively, and perhaps literally, salt the Earth so that nothing will ever rise again. But those people were dedicated to killing all other people. That they wanted to kill and destroy everyone here and that we care for. And that the only way to protect everyone from dying a violent death was to exterminate those threats.

Am I good or evil?

That seems like the kind of thing that can only be determined in hindsight, when the ramifications of the actions are fully understood and the people who are looking back are judging it. Granted, their sense of justice would be severely different than the sense of the person who committed the crime in question, but history is the only real moderator for humanity. For instance, killing a dickhead CEO might sound like a good idea at the moment, but killing him and replacing him with someone kindhearted but incompetent would cost millions of people their jobs. Would sparing him been the better option? I'd say so.

OP: Actions. Easily. Road to hell and all that. The best comparison I can think of goes like this. If a good character gave money to a homeless person because he felt sorry for that person, that'd be good. If a bad person killed that person, that would be bad. If the good person killed the homeless person to put them out of their misery, that would be bad. If the evil person gave the homeless money to get the hell away from them, that would still be good. Intentions mean little if no one knows of them and they mean even less if they fight against what needed to be done. People are remembered for what they did, not why.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It's a silly dichotomy. Both matter. Have all the evil intent in the world and never act on it and then you're probably a shitty person but not exactly evil. If you go around killing a lot of people and never even realize it (action without intent) you're more of an idiot or force of nature than evil. Obviously some of each is required.

Anyways I don't think there's really much of a question of 'more evil' here really. Think it's kind of a silly concept. Both are evil here. One has both malicious intent and acts on it. The other has an incredibly skewed view of what it's okay to do to achieve his goals to the point he's evil. More evil... what does that even *measure*? Neither is justified in the slightest.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Passing actionable judgement on someone based solely on what they think? That's, by definition, thought crime. Or rather, a subset of thought crime as a concept.

But that's not intention. You totally have freedom to run through the 101 ways you'd kill your boss in your head. But then agan, if you buy a gun and a loved one suggests to police that you might be planning something untoward based on a seeming obsession to cause said boss inury through stuff you have written, or a diary that plots out when and where that boss will be over the week, or evidence you might be constructing an alibi for a future murder... then you better believe police will want to detain you for questioning.

And passing guilt on intention to commit murder is at best attempted murder if not murder. If you are intent on murdering someone, it will lead to attempted murder.

So ... honestly, all your other replies next are based on a broken idea of what thoughtcrime is and what is intent. Intention is your aim, your plan, your will to power. Whether by criminal intent or specific intent, have already/or about to (in that respective order) undertake criminal actions knowingly and made your mens rea beyond doubt. Thoughtcrime is something wholly unrelated. And no, it's not thoughtcrime for police arresting you on grounds of something like conspiracy to commit murder.

I grant you it is harder, and should be harder, to find someone guilty of conspiracy to murder than simply charging someone with murder with criminal intent (when there is a body). More often than not it may be downgraded to conspiracy to cause GBH because Police might not have proof you meant to kill someone when they have evidence you are going to inflict harm on another person and then they intercept you ... but that being said, it's not impossible either to prove that you planned to murder them. And it's not thoughtcrime to assert someone has shown specific intent.

Once again, there is a difference between mens rea and simply fantasizing about harm to a person. Specific intent is that difference. There is amassive difference between you doodling a picture of feeding someone into a woodchipper and you hiring the woodchipper and having plans of luring said person to where that woodchipper is. If police have solid grounds to arrest you for intent to commit a crime, it is not thoughtcrime if they don't wait until you actually commit the crime before they pick you up.

The police are meant to protect you, not simply stop bad guys once they commit a crime. Sure as shit I wouldn't want a police officer to tell me they can't do anything about the stalker in front of my building until AFTER they shiv me.

 

[Satinavian]

For me, until an actual attempt is made, there is nothing to punish.

When you come to your senses before you actually do something, i would not call it crime or evil. Even if you don't change your mind but are too craven to actually do anything or simply don't have any idea how to proceed, it is still not enough.

 

[TheFinish]

Passing actionable judgement on someone based solely on what they think? That's, by definition, thought crime. Or rather, a subset of thought crime as a concept.

But that's not intention. You totally have freedom to run through the 101 ways you'd kill your boss in your head. But then agan, if you buy a gun and a loved one suggests to police that you might be planning something untoward based on a seeming obsession to cause said boss inury through stuff you have written, or a diary that plots out when and where that boss will be over the week, or evidence you might be constructing an alibi for a future murder... then you better believe police will want to detain you for questioning.

And passing guilt on intention to commit murder is at best attempted murder if not murder. If you are intent on murdering someone, it will lead to attempted murder.

So ... honestly, all your other replies next are based on a broken idea of what thoughtcrime is and what is intent. Intention is your aim, your plan, your will to power. Whether by criminal intent or specific intent, have already/or about to (in that respective order) undertake criminal actions knowingly and made your mens rea beyond doubt. Thoughtcrime is something wholly unrelated. And no, it's not thoughtcrime for police arresting you on grounds of something like conspiracy to commit murder.

I grant you it is harder, and should be harder, to find someone guilty of conspiracy to murder than simply charging someone with murder with criminal intent (when there is a body). More often than not it may be downgraded to conspiracy to cause GBH because Police might not have proof you meant to kill someone when they have evidence you are going to inflict harm on another person and then they intercept you ... but that being said, it's not impossible either to prove that you planned to murder them. And it's not thoughtcrime to assert someone has shown specific intent.

Once again, there is a difference between mens rea and simply fantasizing about harm to a person. Specific intent is that difference. There is amassive difference between you doodling a picture of feeding someone into a woodchipper and you hiring the woodchipper and having plans of luring said person to where that woodchipper is. If police have solid grounds to arrest you for intent to commit a crime, it is not thoughtcrime if they don't wait until you actually commit the crime before they pick you up.

The police are meant to protect you, not simply stop bad guys once they commit a crime. Sure as shit I wouldn't want a police officer to tell me they can't do anything about the stalker in front of my building until AFTER they shiv me.

But in the cases you've mentioned, the police IS waiting until you've committed a crime. Specifically, they've waited until you commit the crime of "Attempted X", where the X is murder, or robbery, or arson, or whatnot. They can't arrest you for conspiracy to commit murder if you're one dude, because conspiracy requires 2+ people in almost all cases I'm aware of.

The police cannot and will not arrest you for mere intentions. They require actions, but the action doesn't need to be the crime itself. And one of the greatest problems is fiding the line that demonstrates the person in question is willing to go from mere fantasy to an actual crime.

Intent is necessary for a crime, no doubt, but it does not constitute a crime in an of itself. You can have intent and never actually do anything, or do a series of steps leading to the crime that do not themselves constitute a crime, and then you scrap the whole thing. Cops can't arrest you for intent, only for actions that demonstrate a clear intent.

On Topic: Eredin is the worst of the two by a fair margin for the simple reason that he could try a diplomatic solution (petitioning for land, entering a trade) and chooses to instead take the most succint way of just killing everybody. And this gets even worse when you realize there's a multiverse out there full of worlds. At that point, I can understand wanting to capture Ciri (for her powers), but then why not choose one of the infinite worlds to populate? Surely there's one that's empty and pristine? Eredin just wants to kill, and his world going poo-poo is the perfect excuse to go a-killin.

Gaunter O' Dimm in this context is an evil genie, bound by strict rules that govern how and when he acts. With the exception of the poor man in the tavern who gets an eyeful of spoon, the two other instances we have (Olgierd and the noblewoman in Toussaint) are of Gaunter going after douchenozzles. And in Olgierd's case, he asked for it (which is the main reason I only saved him once for the cheevo. All the other times, let him reap what he's sown).

 

[crypticracer]

I would generally say intent. After all, a tornado isn't evil, nor a bear.

However. Pure intent when mixed with self rightousness can be just as evil. Many have commited what they considered necessary evils without actually considering other options. When the evil wasn't actually necessary, their willful ignorance, but will to act, would still be evil in my eyes.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

]

But in the cases you've mentioned, the police IS waiting until you've committed a crime. Specifically, they've waited until you commit the crime of "Attempted X", where the X is murder, or robbery, or arson, or whatnot. They can't arrest you for conspiracy to commit murder if you're one dude, because conspiracy requires 2+ people in almost all cases I'm aware of.

For starters I should clarify, I used that as an example mainly because it's the clearest one in my head where intention is obvious and why police will pick you up rather than just simply wait if the body of evidence is strong enough. Like say a former insider loses their conviction and blabs to police, has recordings, etc.

The police cannot and will not arrest you for mere intentions. They require actions, but the action doesn't need to be the crime itself. And one of the greatest problems is fiding the line that demonstrates the person in question is willing to go from mere fantasy to an actual crime.

Yes... they can if they feel mens rea can be established to a magistrate. If you're planning a terrorist attack, the police will arrest you whether you carry it out or not. It is literally written in numerous Western guidelines the police can arrest you under heavy suspicion that you are about to commit a crime. At the moment people are just playing silly buggers chicken-egg garbage about what intent means... but it is clear as day what intention means across Western police forces. Half the arguments put forward in the thread you could dispel by saying that humans aren't random and thoughtless. If you are intent on murdering someone, you have (or will then) taken steps to make it happen. That is literally what is meant by guilty mind.

If I am planning to murder my spouse, bought an unregistered firearm, and use the construction of a garage and the means to simply pour a cement slab that day to hide their corpse under ... and someone tells the police of my intention and has some weight of credulity behind it... then you could be arrested with intent to commit murder if that pans out. Like say finding the unregistered firearm in question.

Intent is necessary for a crime, no doubt, but it does not constitute a crime in an of itself.

No one said intention alone is a crime. My argument is there are clear grounds for arrests made on intent. You can certainly be charged for other felonies that are relative to the weight of your mens rea to commit and have been shown to willfully play out with opportunity. At the very least, it's not thoughtcrime.

 

[the December King]

I would have to say that the completion of an 'evil' act is worse than the contemplation of one. Regardless of one likely, though not necessarily, leading to the next. Completion constitutes that final, awful step, and that makes it a 'more evil' act.

I don't want to get into the whole 'what constitutes evil in the first place' thing, though.

 

[TheFinish]

The police cannot and will not arrest you for mere intentions. They require actions, but the action doesn't need to be the crime itself. And one of the greatest problems is fiding the line that demonstrates the person in question is willing to go from mere fantasy to an actual crime.

Yes... they can if they feel mens rea can be established to a magistrate. If you're planning a terrorist attack, the police will arrest you whether you carry it out or not. It is literally written in numerous Western guidelines the police can arrest you under heavy suspicion that you are about to commit a crime. At the moment people are just playing silly buggers chicken-egg garbage about what intent means... but it is clear as day what intention means across Western police forces. Half the arguments put forward in the thread you could dispel by saying that humans aren't random and thoughtless. If you are intent on murdering someone, you have (or will then) taken steps to make it happen. That is literally what is meant by guilty mind.

If I am planning to murder my spouse, bought an unregistered firearm, and use the construction of a garage and the means to simply pour a cement slab that day to hide their corpse under ... and someone tells the police of my intention and has some weight of credulity behind it... then you could be arrested with intent to commit murder if that pans out. Like say finding the unregistered firearm in question.

I'm only quoting this because we basically agree on the other two points, but I feel I need to clarify my position here:

You are not wrong, but the police is not arresting you for mere Intent in these cases. In your second example, why is the police arresting you? Because they can match your intent with actions taken in preparation to a crime: buying an unregistered firearm (although that's a crime in an of itself) and the unlawful use of the equipment. And then they arrest you for Attempted Murder, because they have the weight of evidence to support it. "Attempted" doesn't mean you actually attempted the crime itself, it also covers preparatory actions taken in order to commit the crime.

From your example, if a guy goes and tells the police I'll murder my wife, they can't just arrest me for it, even if I really DO plan to kill my wife, unless they find evidence that I've taken steps to facilitate the crime. Otherwise they have nothing.

Similarly, in your terrorist example, of course they will arrest you before you do it (if they can), but they'll do it because they have you under surveillance and you've been stockpiling chemicals, or bought weapons, or got together with mates to discuss blowing up the Capitol. That is to say, because you took actions to bring about your terrorist attack.

Not to mention I don't think the OP meant Intent in the legal definition, but more in a general sense. Nobody cares if Eredin fulfills the qualities for specific intent when he invades the world, he's asking if we think a bad dude doing bad things that's going to do worse (IE: Eredin is killing people and will kill more if he succeeds) but thinks its a noble endeavour is more or less despicable than a bad dude that does bad things to less people (Gaunter O'Dimm in this case) who knows they're bad.

 

[Vigormortis]

So ... honestly, all your other replies next are based on a broken idea of what thoughtcrime is and what is intent.

"I'm saying you're wrong about one thing, so everything else you say is forfeit."

'Kay. Also, I actually do know what thought crime is, but thanks for the passive-aggressiveness. ;D

The police are meant to protect you, not simply stop bad guys once they commit a crime. Sure as shit I wouldn't want a police officer to tell me they can't do anything about the stalker in front of my building until AFTER they shiv me.

Except that if that 'stalker' is on public property, the police can't do anything. It's only once the person has committed a crime (say, trespassing) that they can step in. Standing around staring at shit isn't a crime, and neither is standing there thinking about doing something.

By the way, you're still straw-manning my position. I'm not saying a specific crime has to be committed before the police can step in. (though in many cases, that IS what must happen) I'm saying an action must be undertaken by the perpetrator, with specific intent, before the authorities can step in. That action doesn't necessarily have to be a crime.

This condescending and needlessly confrontational attitude you've taken towards me is absurd. It's also getting old. You keep coming at me with refutations to things I'm not even asserting. What the hell, man? Jesus...

I'm done with this. I'm not going to defend a position I don't even hold. This is dumb. Good day.

I'm only quoting this because we basically agree on the other two points, but I feel I need to clarify my position here:

You are not wrong, but the police is not arresting you for mere Intent in these cases. In your second example, why is the police arresting you? Because they can match your intent with actions taken in preparation to a crime: buying an unregistered firearm (although that's a crime in an of itself) and the unlawful use of the equipment. And then they arrest you for Attempted Murder, because they have the weight of evidence to support it. "Attempted" doesn't mean you actually attempted the crime itself, it also covers preparatory actions taken in order to commit the crime.

From your example, if a guy goes and tells the police I'll murder my wife, they can't just arrest me for it, even if I really DO plan to kill my wife, unless they find evidence that I've taken steps to facilitate the crime. Otherwise they have nothing.

Similarly, in your terrorist example, of course they will arrest you before you do it (if they can), but they'll do it because they have you under surveillance and you've been stockpiling chemicals, or bought weapons, or got together with mates to discuss blowing up the Capitol. That is to say, because you took actions to bring about your terrorist attack.

Not to mention I don't think the OP meant Intent in the legal definition, but more in a general sense. Nobody cares if Eredin fulfills the qualities for specific intent when he invades the world, he's asking if we think a bad dude doing bad things that's going to do worse (IE: Eredin is killing people and will kill more if he succeeds) but thinks its a noble endeavour is more or less despicable than a bad dude that does bad things to less people (Gaunter O'Dimm in this case) who knows they're bad.

This is what I've been saying (granted, in fewer words) all along. Which makes Addendum's argument with me all the more baffling. I just...I don't get it.