Final answer:
The worth of a person who wishes well but harms others compared to one who wishes selfishly but helps others is a complex ethical question. Good intentions may be valued for their intrinsic worth, but the consequences of actions often shape moral judgments. The debate reflects the intricate balance between self-interest and altruism in human nature.
Step-by-step explanation:
The dilemma presented touches upon deep ethical and moral considerations regarding the value of intentions versus outcomes. Humans are complex beings with both selfish and altruistic tendencies, and often these conflicting attributes lead to debates about moral virtue and the meaning of a 'good' action. When discussing the worth of a person who wishes with the best intentions but harms others against one who wishes selfishly but benefits others, there are several philosophical perspectives to consider.
From an ethical standpoint, some might argue that intentions play a crucial role in determining moral worth. A person with good intentions may be considered more virtuous even if their actions lead to negative outcomes. Conversely, a person who acts out of self-interest might inadvertently help others, raising questions about the intrinsic and extrinsic value of their actions. Aristotle's notion of intrinsic value suggests that something is valuable for its own sake, including virtuous intentions. However, the ultimate judgment of an action's worth may be informed by its consequences and the principle that no one willingly chooses what is harmful to themselves.
Reflecting on one's life, especially in the context of morality and how one has treated others, can influence the assessment of a life's worth more than material possessions. It resonates with the idea that our deeds have a lasting impact beyond our immediate desires. It's essential to consider that while self-interest and altruism are parts of human nature, the moral and ethical evaluation of actions may differ based on societal values and personal principles.