Surname 1

Name

Course

Instructor

Date

Intentions or Consequences; What Determines the Ethics of an Action?

Introduction

Any time when a reasonably rational person is faced with a problem that needs action, one

is normally bombarded by myriads of questions that surrounds the ethical nature of the action that

he or she is likely to undertake. The questions try to evaluate whether the intended action has

ethical merit or not. Many philosophical theories and assertions have been formulated that proves

weather an action falls on right or wrong side of ethics depending on two main considerations

(Robinson 26-28). That is, the main and innate intention of the action without any hidden interests

of the outcome, the other one is consideration the possible consequences that can come from the

action, that an action should only be gratified if its end results will be desired (Hanna 3-4). The

two considerations formed basis for formation of ethical laws by re-known philosophers like

Emmanuel Kant and James Stuart Mill. From own perspective, I stand with the Emmanuel Kant

school of thought that it is imperative to consider one’s intentions before validating an action, but

not considering the consequences of the action.

Most of the times we fall short of the ability to possibly predetermine all the consequences

and therefore, this gives Kant’s line of thinking credit. Kant designed an ethical law that was

summarized into three main formulations which include universality, humanity and lastly,

autonomy. He argues that these three laws would guide to consider whether an action has ethical

merit or not (Robinson 23).

 Surname 2

Law of Universality

The first law is that of universality whereby it suggests that ethics is not only prescribed

by certain section of people, but it should be something that is accepted globally (Hanna 12). It

should be in line with the expectations of the most people that may subscribe to similar action

without any compromise. According to this rule, if an action is just right for you to do it, but you

cannot have that pleasures when you are the one on the receiving end, you should not take actions

into play. Kant argues that, “act only according to that maxims or creeds where you can at the

same time have wish that it should become a universal law” (Robinson 30). For instance, we often

give out to the less fortunate in the society and help them educate their children because we believe

that they should also be able to do similar actions when they are in positions to help. Therefore,

before validating an action, one should always ask if they will be ethical okay if somebody else is

the one that does that action. If the answer is no, you should not do it, while when the answer is

positive, then go on because it is ethical (Hanna 12).

Law of Humanity

The second law states that our actions should not always be inclined only towards our

gains, one should also consider the people involved (Hanna 25). We should consider whether our

actions subject others into ridicule, harm or deprives one the pleasures at the expense of my own

gain. If the action bring displeasure into one’s eyes, then it is prudent not to pursue of it at all cost.

Kant writes that, “act in such a way that that you treat humanity, whether in your person or in the

person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as means (Robinson 36).

example, manager in a factory should be rational in assigning duties to subordinate workers. The

allocation should be realistic, according to one’s specialization and achievable within specified

time. A thief should consider how his act would amount to respect of humanity or not before
 Surname 3

pursuing it. Similarly, terrorists should ask themselves similar ethical questions before taking

hurling a grenade into a crowded building with intentions of claiming lives of people. How will it

serve the humanity? Therefore, our actions should not have pegged on using other people for our

own selfish gain, rather we should imperative to consider the plight of humanity in our actions.

We are obliged to serve humanity with utmost honor (Robinson 28).

Law of Autonomy

The third guide given by Emmanuel Kant towards achieving ethics out of our actions was

autonomy. It suggests that one should be self-directed when in choosing their desired ends and

goals. The ethical rules should be based on self-reliance and that should not borrow influence from

the others because, the influence will mean that the action is not of your own. When the action is

not from within self, you can only do it with some hidden motives such like avoiding the

uncertainties such as punishment even if it is within the ethical frame work. For instance, the boss

may demand employees to execute some tasks that are against their ethical beliefs. The employees

may just execute the instructions only to avoid the unknown from the boss like being fired. But

out rightly, they will fall short of autonomy in ethical perspective view of such situation (Hanna

12).

Kant states that a person’s goodness or badness greatly on the motivation of their action

but not the consequences of the actions. He argues that one can only have moral worth if motivated

by their own morality to do an action (Hanna 18). Moral worth according to Kant implies that

when you something because you understand that it is your duty, with little regard on whether you

like it or not. However, the work of Kant has faced some criticism because he actually championed

that we should always do the right and should conform to regulations without compromise. Also
 Surname 4

he postulates that we should only lie when it is permissible. This means people would lie to

rationalize acts like stealing and killing which is not right (Hanna 14).

Conclusion

Kant postulated a moral assertion that works on the principle of rationalism. According to

the theory, whether an action is right or wrong is based on their intentions, rather than on the

consequential outcomes of the actions. He meant that the actions should fulfil the needs of the

duty. He simplified the theory by breaking it down into three fundamental parts which include the

law of universality, which expressed that moral actions should be universally accepted. Any action

that one would not will to receive from another person is wrong and lacks ethical merit. The other

one was law of humanity. That we should strive to serve humanity at all cost. Do not take actions

that shows disrespect and subjects others in a situation whereby they feel used. Lastly, was the law

of autonomy, that our actions should be self-determined and should not be coerced into taking

actions because when we do that that we lose the moral worth of our actions. In a nut shell, Kant

moral theory asserts that we should do good for the sake of the goodness by weighing more the

intentions.
 Surname 5

Works cited
Robinson, Richard M. "Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Moral Duties." Imperfect Duties of

Management. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.

Hanna, Robert. Kant and the foundations of analytic philosophy. Clarendon Press. 2001.