Why 'I Meant Well' Isn't Enough: A New Way to Resolve Conflicts

When someone hurts us, we often ask, 'Did they mean to do that?' But that question might be the wrong one. A recent essay suggests that in conflicts, we should focus on two other things: what the person reasonably expected would happen and what other options they had. For example, if you try to catch someone falling off a ladder, you expect to help them. If it turns out they were filming a stunt and you ruined it, you shouldn't feel guilty—your expectation was reasonable. The actual outcome was unpredictable, so you don't need to change your behavior.

The second factor is alternatives. Sometimes all your choices will harm someone. In those cases, you're not wrong for choosing the option that causes the least harm—or the one you prefer if the harms are equal. This happens often at work or in groups: any decision will upset someone. If someone tries to make you feel bad for a choice that helped more people or harmed fewer, they might be acting in bad faith. You can ignore them or call them out.

The essay also notes that people often bring up 'intent' when they can't discuss these deeper issues. If someone is hurt, talking about your intent rarely helps. Instead, focus on what you reasonably expected and what alternatives you had. This approach can lead to fairer conversations and better decisions. It also protects you from unfair guilt. So next time you're in a conflict, ask: What did I expect to happen? What else could I have done? That's more useful than dwelling on intent.