Kant focused on the intentions behind your actions when assessing the morality of the act, while Bentham and Mill focused on the consequences of your actions when assessing their mor

 Question:

• Kant focused on the intentions behind your actions when assessing the morality of the act, while Bentham and Mill focused on the consequences of your actions when assessing their moral worth. Of the two, consequences and intentions, which do you think is more important when it comes time to assess the morality of actions? Do good intentions save a bad outcome or vice versa? Make sure to provide some clear and specific examples in your explanation. Also note that while it's possible to look at both intentions and consequences, for any act it looks like we can only really prioritize one of those.

Answer:

Good Evening,

It is hard for me to pick a side in this debate and say that I believe in a sense that one is more important than the other. In some situations the ends very clearly justify the means, but in others it is very obvious that while the outcome may have been a positive one, the intentions were entirely negative. If I was forced to choose a side in this debate, I would have to sit on the side that believes the intentions are more important than the outcome. Someone can have entirely good intentions, yet end up with a negative outcome completely separate from what they intended. 

I do not believe this to be a question that can be answered in a general sense. This moral debate between consequences and actions very much depends on a given situation. For example, Gary Plauche was a man famous for notoriously killing his son’s molester. He was charged with murder and eventually convicted of manslaughter. While Gary committed a crime, I do not believe his actions to be immoral. I believe that while he did commit a murder that his intentions were good. Gary wanted to not only avenge his son, but prevent any other son or father from having to go through what he and his son went through. Another example of this is seen in the military. I was an airborne infantryman. In our mission planning, if 30 percent of troops land safely on the ground and are physically able to continue the mission it is considered to be a successful infiltration. While there are many lives lost, if that infiltration leads to a successful operation this is seen as an avoidable, but necessary loss. -Jared