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).

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
 Surname 2

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 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
 Surname 3

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 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.
 Surname 4

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.