The Intent to Effect Goodness

Defining a concept is probably one of the most difficult things ever done. From color to intelligence there are always gaps and things unexplained in these definitions. I would say that goodness is defined in both intention and effect. The intent to "do good" does not automatically make an action just or good, yet it is essential to determine whether or not an action was "good". When discussion on cultural appropriation comes up, I think this rings true. For example, when Miley Cyrus wore her hair in dreadlocks at the VMA's she was celebrated for her fashion statement and was defended saying she was "appreciating the culture"; yet mere months before Zendaya wore her hair in locs and was criticized by the media saying she must "smell like patchouli oil" and making other offensive racially based comments on a popular television program, Fashion Police. While I am all for learning from and appreciating other cultures, there are different ways to go about it. If this occurs yet simultaneously one person is put down and another is celebrated for the same thing the act isnt good becuase the effects were not without harm. As seen with Zendaya and Miley, the effects of actions are just as important as the intent. No matter the intent, if what one does causes harm or pain towards another, the action cannot be good. This is because, as defined by Google, good is “that which is morally right; righteousness”. To be righteous ones intent and effect must be right. If these things are malicious or harmful, they by this intertwining definition cannot be good or righteous. To define good we need to use other basically indefinable words and intertwine their definitions with each other and our own philosophy to create a partial definition. My incomplete definition of “goodness” would be actions done with the intent and effect of righteousness and respect.