Quote Originally Posted by Shpadoinkle View Post
Saving a child from certain death because you know that in a few years that child is unavoidably destined to become The Torturer Of All Existance (should he survive long enough)... I'd call that a pretty evil act. If you DON'T know about the kid's destiny to become TTOAE, however, I'd call it a good act. I've always mantained that whether an act is good or evil depends on the character's intentions.
Saving the kid because you know he'll accomplish great evil and you want that to happen is one thing, saving him despite knowing that he'll accomplish great evil that you don't want to see happen is another. I mean, is it a good act to let a child die because of what he is "unavoidably destined" to do/become (never mind how troublesome the notion of being "unavoidably destined" is in morality - even if everything is so determined, can you ever be sufficiently certain of your own knowledge and judgement to act as if it is?)?

Conversely, even if your aim in saving the child is to ultimately accomplish evil - and if you would happily let the child die if saving it didn't have this evil consequence - is it really evil to save it? Isn't saving a (at present!) innocent's life a good thing to do? You may not be a good person if you do it for the wrong reasons, but it's not an evil act IMO.

Essentially the problem is that the question mixes the morality of an act as an inherent thing ("good" acts and "bad" acts) and as a function of its consequences (an act with "good" consequences and "bad" consequences). On top of that, one act may fall under two headings and be good for one reason and bad for another (you killed a puppy! But you fed the puppy to a starving child, and it was the only source of food for some reason. Look, moral thought experiments get a bit contrived, okay?), or have both good and bad consequences (you killed that man! Now his children are orphans! On the other hand he was the (immune) vector for an incredibly lethal plague).