by TM Garret Schmid
December 30, 2025

People argue about intent vs. impact like it is a political team sport. But it is a real moral problem that shows up everywhere: marriages, business, parenting, public speech, even basic human decency in a checkout line.

And the reason this debate never ends is simple: both sides are at least half right, but deny the other side that right. And sometimes two contrary opinions can both be right, depending on what kind of “truth” you are talking about.

Neil deGrasse Tyson framed that difference as subjective (personal) truth versus objective (factual) truth – what someone experiences versus what is measurably the case. Put it in a metaphor. A man and a woman are sitting in the same room. She says, “It’s hot.” He says, “It’s cold.” The thermostat says it’s 70°F. The cheap question is: who is lying? The better question is: what is the temperature, and what are these two humans actually reporting – the number, or their experience of the number?

That is exactly what is happening in the intent vs. impact fight. One side is reporting the “thermostat.” The other side is reporting the lived experience. The mistake is pretending only one of those counts. The danger is what happens when either side starts acting like the other half does not exist.

The downward spiral starts when we move from describing reality to judging a person. The moment you say, “You were wrong,” you are not just talking about temperature anymore. You are suddenly deciding what someone deserves, and you are setting their human value. And that is exactly where intent and impact collide – because judging a human being fairly is harder than judging a number. We define what these numbers mean, and often we keep switching definitions mid-argument, then acting surprised that nobody agrees.

This is how we justify our own narrative and feel safe. Because otherwise we would have to admit we are wrong. And who wants that?

This perception of morality defines how humans actually judge, and it is why these conversations get emotionally explosive. Each side thinks the other is either stupid or dishonest. Even when one person points to the number, the side who only sees their personal truth often has already become blind to the number, and labels the perception of the other side untrue. Both become invalid, and only their own opinion is true. I am the good person, you are the bad person, and vice versa. But here’s the twist, and it sounds like a paradox. It happens quite often that the bad person in the game becomes the good person in some people’s perceptions.

Imagine an inherently rotten billionaire donates $1 million to a children’s hospital, not because he cares, but because he wants applause, reputation, and a tax write-off. The intent is disgusting, but the impact is still objectively good for the kids who receive the treatment. So you would think both camps have a problem. “Intent only” morality has to pretend the kids did not benefit. “Impact only” morality has to pretend the billionaire is suddenly a saint. The blind person will only see the ends that justified the means, and suddenly the billionaire is their hero, especially when the means fit their narrative, or seemingly benefit them.

And that is why this debate never dies. It is not a social media issue. It is a built-in contradiction in how humans evaluate human beings. Sometimes humans evaluate because they have already made their minds up, and nothing can change that. When it fits their narrative, the impact justifies the intent.

The opposite is ignoring the impact, because we use good intentions as a shield for bad behavior. It is how “I did not mean it” becomes a loophole for repeated harm. At some point, “accident” turns into pattern, and pattern turns into negligence, and negligence turns into moral failure, even if the person keeps insisting they are a good guy. This is what happens in many marriages. Having good intentions still can make you the bad guy in the game.

Let’s get to my last example. Two doctors perform the same procedure with the same level of competence. Doctor A intends to heal, but the patient dies. Doctor B intends to harm, but the patient survives. If someone says, “Only impact matters,” they are forced to treat Doctor B as morally good because the outcome was good, even though the intention was evil. You would think that almost nobody actually believes that. No one would openly support someone who is obviously evil. But then again, think of the billionaire.

Remember my example with the man and the woman in the room. Both sides stated the truth. In the case of intent and impact, both can be bad if there’s a mismatch. We just don’t always see the mismatch. While impact is immediately visible or feelable, intent sometimes only predicts behavior, and it tells you whether you are dealing with an accident or a threat.

Ask any woman whether she wants a man who treats her well, and the answer is most likely yes. That is impact. But then ask the real question: does she want a man who treats her well because he loves her and respects her, or a man who treats her well only because he is afraid of consequences, social shame, or prison?

Same behavior. Same surface-level impact. Completely different human being underneath. The answer seems just as clear as with the two doctors, but sometimes intent can be hidden.

So, whenever intent and impact mismatch, things can go bad really quick.
The only way to win this game, to get out of this debate, is to stop trying to control the other person’s perception, and start controlling the only thing we have under control: ourselves.
Bottom line: You can’t force someone to feel unhurt, and you can’t force them to see your heart. But what you can do is control your own intent, measure the impact honestly, and then ask the only question that matters: Does my intent match my impact?