Person A elects a path of life for herself. She likes that path a lot.
Person B likes that path a lot too, and thinks that it's the best path for A.
B sees potential threats to A's path of life.
B starts increasingly shady machinations to make sure A stays on her path.
B's machinations indirectly ruin A's life.
B does not notice/care that her machinations harm A, as long as they help A stay on her path.
B's machinations go too far.
A kills herself.

Was B well-intentioned ?
Does it matter ?


One person I know thinks that B cares about path more than about A, therefore she isn't well-intentioned. I think it matters, because her skewed and inhuman priorities that really ignore A's wellbeing and opinion are not just "incompetence in helping A".

Another person I know thinks that B was well-intentioned because A chosen her path for herself and liked it, so B tried to help A to stay on path that made her happy. Therefore, B is well-intentioned, just incompetent. However, it doesn't matter because she drove A to suicide, so she's guilty no matter what.

B, from the information given, certainly seems well-intentioned, but as they say "the path to hell is paved in good intentions". It's more than incompetence if such an action led to suicide; it's quite possible manslaughter, depending on specifics. Without knowing the specifics, it's impossible to say whether B killed herself due to A's machinations or not (plus, I personally believe that suicide is a completely selfish act, baring heroic sacrifice like in a movie or extreme situations). Ultimately, this necessity to keep specifics off of the web makes trying to calm a troubled mind using an internet poll highly unlikely.

This has nothing to do with my RL.
It's a situation in a plot of a show, but I wanted to boil it down as much as possible.
And yes, A killed herself only due to B's machinations. It was pretty much spelled out.

I THINK I SAW this on Criminal Minds once.

Your recent bolded text changes the original post quite a bit. You said B indirectly lead to A's suicide and now you're saying A killed herself only because of what B did. That's very different.

Anyway, this is easy i think. B was well-intentioned but that doesn't matter at all. B shouldn't have gotten involved and should have supported A and that's it. Nothing beyond that. If B is the parent of A, then that changes everything however. Any other relationship wouldn't excuse B's behavior here though.

1) Machinations led A to suicide indirectly, but they were indeed the only reason of it. I do not see a contradiction.
2) Wait... what ? How does being a parent "changes everything forever" ? How do a parent has more excuses for driving their child to suicide than other people ? Or more excuses for "getting involved" in their life ? Do you consider an adoptive parent a parent ? Or inactive biological parent ? Do you consider an informal, but major, parental figure a parent ? Do you consider an orphanage's staff parents ? Do you consider...
3) Both A and B are older than 18. Just to clarify.
4) IMHO, whether A is a parent of B or B is a parent of A or neither is a parent of another one plays exactly no role in the situation. You may consider both (all three, in fact) scenarios, if you wish.

i think B is acting appropriately if they are a parent who often do such things in the best interests of their child. Any other relationship would be serious overreach to ensure A follows their path. That's all I mean.

3) yeah, i figured.

k, this is getting boring already, but was a very cool scenario.

I'd say that B was well-intentioned in the beginning, but their methodology (keeping A on a certain path) replaced their original intention so they couldn't be called "well-intentioned" by the end.
If I were being a grammar snob I'd select "Yes" since they met the criteria at some point. I'd be 100% accurate.
I think "Yes, but it doesn't matter" reflects my view better though.

I mostly agree with TP, but really there is no way to determine intent. B being inept in their attempts at support could bring about this result, but so could B simply being controlling and prideful. TP's scenario is the best case, and even that isn't very good.

Hmm. It seems like it might be a problem of communication and respecting agency. B should have told A what they were doing to help, especially if it had long lasting or far reaching consequences. If A would not have approved of B's actions, then B is not respecting A's right to determine their life. Likewise, removing a person's capability to choose a different path is inherently malevolent.

Without a little more context, it is difficult to say if B was truly trying help A, or if there was some other motive that corrupted their actions, such as pride, preservation of reputation, living vicariously through A, etc.

i like the episode kino where the girl is spreading a mission of peace and pacifism or something with her husband b/c she wants to make the world a better place but behind the scenes her husband is killing a lot of people to make the mission go smoothly for his wife

sounds like B was well intention depending on the details of the machinaitons (at the very least it sounds like she had good intentions for A)

depending on the details of the machinations it is probably still unethical though

Take responsibility for yourself, A! B is fine.