If your intentions are good...

[Original Poster]

Should you care if your actions or words are perceived offensively? How much should you care about another's perception of your actions? And for what purpose should you care? Obviously if a man dresses as a woman and others find it offensive, he should not care nor take it personally if he truly desires to be dressed that way. But let's take Doctor Kivorkian for example, should he have cared more what people thought of his actions? Should he have considered perhaps there is a wider set of principles than his own and he ought to examine the judgment of others more closely in order to enhance his own ethical compass? Should a teacher care if his students don't like his lesson? Should he listen to their complaints and hunt for validity? Should he change his assignments if their claims hold validity? Should a student do an assignment when they believe their complaint was valid and the teacher did not agree but failed to persuade the student? When you come into conflict do you attempt to win or learn?

[Erii]

What is your definition of good?

[Original Poster]

Endeavored in long lasting sustainability of the society rather than short lived sustainability of the self... I suppose. It doesn't matter, as long as your acting in accordance with your perception of good what sort of merit does the conflicting opinion of others have?

[Oktober]

in the '30s and '40s, a vast majority of the German population considered it to be good if they were cleansing the population of Jews. So no, I guess. Or yes. There's always weird exceptions where people are brainwashed. I suppose there are many more examples of perception of good going wrong. The war on terror is a great example as well.

[Meakel]

I think intention matters, but does not pardon whatever action was performed. I also think the level of 'offense' should be taken into account. Obviously the man who chooses to cross dress harms significantly less people than Kivorkian. I think the student-teacher question is a good one. It should be a teachers duty to provide the best education possible and he is the one with the credentials, qualifications and experience. On the other hand, the students are the ones being taught and should very well have a say in how the process goes. Some kind of mix I guess would be preferable. Where the mix is, I don't know haha.

[Darkmatters]

Is this really a general question or is it about school? I thought it was general until that whole paragraph about school. I'm looking at it as a specific school-related question (because the school-related sentences are far more prevalent than anything else in the OP). A teacher's job is to educate, not to entertain, though of course the best teachers can do both. You can't expect every teacher to be entertaining though. And what it comes down to is this... are the students just bored, or are their complaints actually valid about the quality of the EDUCATIONAL material? Boredom is no excuse... lots of subjects are boring (especially with poor teachers), but still the material is stuff the students should know. Assuming this is about a specific course/teacher, I'd say if a majority of students really have VALID complaints (about the overall quality of the course) they should take it to the principal. There's no point arguing with a teacher in class... that just wastes everybody's time and disrupts class. "Should a student do an assignment when they believe their complaint was valid and the teacher did not agree but failed to persuade the student?" Yes, unless the student(s) can convince the teacher or principal to change things. A student can choose resistance (not doing assignments) but must accept the consequences of that choice, which may well include disciplinary action. In order to pass a course, students know they're required to do the work, and refusing to do it is breaking the contract. Choose your fights carefully... would it be worth possible expulsion to try to make this point? Also it would be necessary for the student to consider their true motivations. Are they reacting against a real injustice, or just being bratty? Sorry if I misunderstood the question. ***EDIT*** Actually my response still applies even if it was a general question - because in a given situation you need to consider any social contracts, written, spoken or implied, that might be involved. Students and teachers have a contract stating that students must complete all course work or at least try to, and similar contracts would apply in other situations as well. Certain behavior is expected in certain social situations (example, in Nazi Germany it was expected that all good citizens would do their duty and turn in friends and neighbors who weren't good Nazi's). You have unspoken contracts with family, friends, lovers etc, and other types of relationships/situations carry similar contracts with them.

[Maria92]

I think intention matters, but does not pardon whatever action was performed. I also think the level of 'offense' should be taken into account. Obviously the man who chooses to cross dress harms significantly less people than Kivorkian. I would argue Dr. Jack Kevorkian did much good in his life by making assisted suicide available. People have a right to die when they want. He spared quite a few people from prolonged struggles with incredibly painful terminal conditions. Quality of life is vastly more important than quantity, and for people who will never again have that quality, dying in comfort with dignity is a fine option they should be able to choose.

[Meakel]

I would argue Dr. Jack Kevorkian did much good in his life by making assisted suicide available. People have a right to die when they want. He spared quite a few people from prolonged struggles with incredibly painful terminal conditions. Quality of life is vastly more important than quantity, and for people who will never again have that quality, dying in comfort with dignity is a fine option they should be able to choose. Sorry, haha I should have clarified. I didn't really mean it that way. I actually agree with Kevorkian but I just meant that his actions might have caused more potential harm than a drag queen.

[snoop]

If your actions or words affect others (that is to say, has a tangible impact on their lives--teaching, killing, abusing, etc.) then you should care or at least consider what others think. If they affect only you, others' opinions should not matter unless you want them to.

[Darkmatters]

LOL I'm not sure killers and abusers are going to care much what others think - aside from trying to hide their crimes from everyone! But what you say is true (just need better examples). Yes, if your position affects other people, you should definitely consider how your actions affect them. So I'll amend my position above by saying a teacher definitely SHOULD try to make his/her course palatable and even enjoyable if possible for the students. However, I still maintain that a student also has a responsibility to think how his actions affect others and should refrain from disrupting class. The way to negotiate change in a teacher's curriculum is by speaking to them after class and then possibly to the principal. Refusing to do assignments is a last resort and should be used only as a form of protest to make a point.

[ninja9578]

George Bush probably thought he had good intentions. 'nuff said.

[Taosaur]

Should you care if your actions or words are perceived offensively? I'll just leave this here: Spoiler for Abhaya Sutta: I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary. Then Prince Abhaya went to Nigantha Nataputta and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Nigantha Nataputta said to him, "Come, now, prince. Refute the words of Gotama the contemplative, and this admirable report about you will spread afar: 'The words of Gotama the contemplative — so mighty, so powerful — were refuted by Prince Abhaya!'" "But how, venerable sir, will I refute the words of Gotama the contemplative — so mighty, so powerful?" "Come now, prince. Go to Gotama the contemplative and on arrival say this: 'Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?' If Gotama the contemplative, thus asked, answers, 'The Tathagata would say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,' then you should say, 'Then how is there any difference between you, lord, and run-of-the-mill people? For even run-of-the-mill people say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others.' But if Gotama the contemplative, thus asked, answers, 'The Tathagata would not say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,' then you should say, 'Then how, lord, did you say of Devadatta that "Devadatta is headed for destitution, Devadatta is headed for hell, Devadatta will boil for an eon, Devadatta is incurable"? For Devadatta was upset & disgruntled at those words of yours.' When Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up. Just as if a two-horned chestnut[1] were stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. In the same way, when Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up." Responding, "As you say, venerable sir," Prince Abhaya got up from his seat, bowed down to Nigantha Nataputta, circumambulated him, and then went to the Blessed One. On arrival, he bowed down to the Blessed One and sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he glanced up at the sun and thought, "Today is not the time to refute the Blessed One's words. Tomorrow in my own home I will overturn the Blessed One's words." So he said to the Blessed One, "May the Blessed One, together with three others, acquiesce to my offer of tomorrow's meal." The Blessed One acquiesced with silence. Then Prince Abhaya, understanding the Blessed One's acquiescence, got up from his seat, bowed down to the Blessed One, circumambulated him, and left. Then, after the night had passed, the Blessed One early in the morning put on his robes and, carrying his bowl and outer robe, went to Prince Abhaya's home. On arrival, he sat down on a seat made ready. Prince Abhaya, with his own hand, served & satisfied the Blessed One with fine staple & non-staple foods. Then, when the Blessed One had eaten and had removed his hand from his bowl, Prince Abhaya took a lower seat and sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?" "Prince, there is no categorical yes-or-no answer to that." "Then right here, lord, the Niganthas are destroyed." "But prince, why do you say, 'Then right here, lord, the Niganthas are destroyed'?" "Just yesterday, lord, I went to Nigantha Nataputta and... he said to me...'Come now, prince. Go to Gotama the contemplative and on arrival say this: "Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?"... Just as if a two-horned chestnut were stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. In the same way, when Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up.'" Now at that time a baby boy was lying face-up on the prince's lap. So the Blessed One said to the prince, "What do you think, prince: If this young boy, through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were to take a stick or a piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you do?" "I would take it out, lord. If I couldn't get it out right away, then holding its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I would take it out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for the young boy." "In the same way, prince: [1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them. [2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them. [3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. [4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them. [5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them. [6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings." "Lord, when wise nobles or priests, householders or contemplatives, having formulated questions, come to the Tathagata and ask him, does this line of reasoning appear to his awareness beforehand — 'If those who approach me ask this, I — thus asked — will answer in this way' — or does the Tathagata come up with the answer on the spot?" "In that case, prince, I will ask you a counter-question. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: are you skilled in the parts of a chariot?" "Yes, lord. I am skilled in the parts of a chariot." "And what do you think: When people come & ask you, 'What is the name of this part of the chariot?' does this line of reasoning appear to your awareness beforehand — 'If those who approach me ask this, I — thus asked — will answer in this way' — or do you come up with the answer on the spot?" "Lord, I am renowned for being skilled in the parts of a chariot. All the parts of a chariot are well-known to me. I come up with the answer on the spot." "In the same way, prince, when wise nobles or priests, householders or contemplatives, having formulated questions, come to the Tathagata and ask him, he comes up with the answer on the spot. Why is that? Because the property of the Dhamma is thoroughly penetrated by the Tathagata. From his thorough penetration of the property of the Dhamma, he comes up with the answer on the spot." [2] When this was said, Prince Abhaya said to the Blessed One: "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life." Abhaya Sutta: To Prince Abhaya

[tommo]

You've probably got too many questions for one thread. Should you care if your actions or words are perceived offensively? How much should you care about another's perception of your actions? And for what purpose should you care? But let's take Doctor Kivorkian for example, should he have cared more what people thought of his actions? Should he have considered perhaps there is a wider set of principles than his own and he ought to examine the judgment of others more closely in order to enhance his own ethical compass? These aren't really the same thing at all. Kivorkian should tell all the other people with different "principles" to get fucked. And he basically did afaict, just not in those words of course. The only person in that case who matters is the patient and the doctor. If the patient wants to die, and the doctor is willing to help them die, why should any one else get an opinion? (rhetorical question, they obviously shouldn't) Regarding the first question alone. Should you care if your actions or words are perceived offensively? How much should you care about another's perception of your actions? And for what purpose should you care? I really do not think anybody should worry about it. I think it can lead to an overload of internal conflict. Based on experience. If you don't express yourself, you end up pretty insane. As well as the possibility of ending up over-analysing yourself. Sometimes you just can't predict it.

[Original Poster]

I agree Tommo, I believe expression is healthy. I also think people must do what they think is right even if it makes them unpopular. I think listening is very important. One should not act ignorant of their effect on the world around them. It's important to be open and listen as carefully as possible. And then, as Taosaur's story pointed out, speak out if it's beneficial, but choose the time and place carefully.

[Darkmatters]

Speaking in general about good intentions, you know what they say about the road to hell...

[Maria92]

Speaking in general about good intentions, you know what they say about the road to hell... It's paved with republicans?

[Taosaur]

Speaking in general about good intentions, you know what they say about the road to hell... Don't pick up Hitler? (not so much because of the genocide thing--he's just a really loud talker).

[Meakel]