The tension between intention and result – Bibi as a case study

Hello Michi,
Quite a few argue against Bibi that the only thing that motivates him is his political survival, and the person who is motivated by these only things is not worthy of being a leader, and therefore Bibi is not worthy of the throne. In my opinion, this argument assumes that we have the possibility of knowing the person’s intentions. I want to argue that we have no way of knowing this, and therefore what is left for us is to judge solely on the level of the potential consequences of his moves. It is important to note that the discussion is of principle and does not specifically concern Bibi. I bring him up only as a case study.
As I see it, intentions in the leadership relationship can be proper, that is, oriented to serve the political interests, or improper, that is, intended to serve the leader’s personal goals. In addition, the results of the potential moves can be beneficial or not beneficial to the political interests. Therefore, as you argued in another context, the number of groups that may form in the population is four: proper intention and beneficial result; improper intention and beneficial result, proper intention and not beneficial result, improper intention and not beneficial result. In practice, of course, there are only two groups – those who think that Bibi’s intentions are directed towards the realization of his personal motives also think that his political moves are wrong (anti-Bibiism). In contrast, those who think that his intentions are primarily oriented towards political interests also think that his choices may be beneficial (Bibiism). However, it is quite clear that identifying between these two levels constitutes a blatant failure.
In my opinion, Bibi’s intentions, as well as those of any leader, have no real significance. In the first situation, where the intention is proper and the result may be beneficial, there is not much discussion, since this is a normal situation. In the second situation, where the intention is improper but the result serves political interests, then what does it matter if it also contributes to Bibi on the political level? It is quite clear that a person who conducts himself in the public sphere will have personal interests as part of his considerations. However, it can be said that when his intentions are intended first and foremost to realize his personal motives, meaning that the benefit of the state is of secondary importance, this has moral weight. But in my opinion, even if this is true, it does not matter. As a state, what should interest us are political interests, and judgment should be made accordingly, that is, based on consideration of possible benefits. Here there is room to ask whether we prefer a leader with pure intentions who causes harm to the state on the consequential level, or a leader with egoistic intentions whose actions advance political interests? I think it’s pretty clear that the second answer is the intuitive one for most of us. Of course, one could say that we prefer a leader who has both good intentions and who is beneficial to the country, but I try to be realistic.
I want to clarify and say that the focus of my remarks is on the tension between intention and consequence. That is, it can be said that immoral intention may lead to other destructive consequences (educational effects, for example). But it should be noted that this is a discussion between different possible consequences, and not between intention and consequence. It is certainly possible to argue that building a morally flawed social framework, or a wrong educational example, and so on, are more serious consequences than one security consequence or another. But again, this is a debate between different potential policy implications and not about the tension between intention and consequence. Therefore, it is irrelevant to what I am arguing.
So, regarding the third option – a proper intention and an unhelpful result – here too, intention has no meaning. In this situation, the choice may cause harm, so why on earth should it matter to me that his intentions are pure? Should a leader’s good intentions in themselves motivate people to keep him in power? So he has good intentions. He may deserve a certain kind of moral praise, but his choices cause harm to the country and on this basis he will be judged. It can be said that in such a situation, I may judge him less harshly, but I still would not want him to remain in power, because he causes harm. Incidentally, it is not so clear here what less severe judgment means. A politician’s judgment is made at the ballot box. Either he stays in power or he doesn’t. Levels of judgment have no meaning here. The same applies when the intention is selfish and the result may harm political interests. Here, it is true that one can argue that poor moral judgment may lead to destructive results. But once again we return to the discussion of the results and whether they may be beneficial or not. There is no way to escape from this. At most, improper intentions may provide additional justification for removing a person from power, but not a central justification.
Up to this point I have argued why it is right to focus on the consequentialist level and not the deontological level. Now I want to make a stronger argument and say that even if intention has weight, we have no way of knowing it. David Enoch argues in one of his articles in the book “On the Target,” in which he debates with Ido Porat and Ram Segev about the moral status of targeted killing, that intention is a mental state. We have no way of knowing what a person’s true intentions are. Bibi, for that matter, may claim that his intentions are pure and intended first and foremost to serve political interests, but deep down he does not really intend this. Is there a way to verify this? There is no way, so the question is meaningless.
In conclusion, my argument is that not only is it right to focus on the consequential level when we come to judge a leader, but we have no choice but to do so, since the discussion about intentions, in addition to being irrelevant, is also not possible. All the fuss about the question of whether Bibi is deliberately doing everything to maintain his political status is not that relevant in my opinion.