don't look at the act, look at the purpose...?

Question

do you think this is true? has anybody made this statement before because it just went into my mind...?

pls. look at the questions, don't explain it.

I mean the act itself.

Answer 1

Do you mean look at the motive behind the act? Clarify please.

Character is doing the right thing (the act) for the right reason (the motive). What is the right motive? Can we know the motives of others?

We can only know for sure our own motives. If we're completely honest with ourselves, we'll see our motive is often to gain real or imagined praise from others. And when praise is our real motive, we'll find that getting more praiseworthy results gets us more praise.

Answer 2

Hate the sin not the sinner?
The road to Hell was paved with good intentions?
The end justifies the means?

There have been sayings along these lines, I don't think there is one exactly as you have put it. It is true though, sometimes people do the wrong thing but we should hate the action not the actor. Perhaps they did have good intentions. Perhaps they were trying to do the right thing or at least do the wrong thing for the right reasons. It doesn't change the result but as long as it wasn't done with malicious intent the person shouldn't be attacked.

Answer 3

Amazing question! This question is at the heart of the key difference between ethical theories that consider only the consequences of our acts to be important, and those that focus on our motivation. Kant said that we can only be morally praised or blamed for what we can control. We can't always control the outcome of our acts. But, according to Kant, our motives are completely within our control. So we can only be held morally accountable for our motives. Kant said that only a "good will" is good unconditionally. But Kant also looked at the act itself, to see whether it was something that we are morally obligated to do, or to avoid doing. That part gets more complicated. As to the philosophers who considered the consequences of our acts to be the real measure of their moral worth, most of these were Utilitarians, like John Stuart Mill. They are more popular than Kant is, especially when people consider public policy questions.

It is very interesting that this issue just popped into your mind like that. Consider taking an ethics course. Make sure it's a good one, or else you may be bored!

Answer 4

Yes, this is true. For example, when you receive a gift from someone, accept it with a thank-you and a smile and even write a thank-you note for it. Make that person feel special for remembering you no matter what it is. Just the "act" of remembering you is enough in itself. Grams

Answer 5

Yes, I often agree with that. The purpose does not always justify what someone did to get there, but my philosophy is that sometimes the details and the journey are not nearly as important as the outcome (just another way of saying the same thing). It keeps me from getting hung up on inane details that aren't as important as the big picture.

Answer 6

It's basically the same as the end justifies the means & it is not always true. I have done the wrong thing for the right reason in the past & had to learn from my mistakes. Have you heard the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions?

Answer 7

Maybe if we looked at the cause of the act we could determine the purpose.

Answer 8

there is a saying in greek - can be translated more or less as:
"purpose is blessing the acts"
i think that's what you're trying to say. like, when you have a good purpose, you could be "forgiven" if the way of doing it is (moraly) wrong.

Answer 9

in another phrase, in every act, there is a purpose. but sometimes, we have to be careful to interprete the act itself, because we may not get what is the real purpose of it. that is the time when we use our feelings, and guts....

Answer 10

Ends might explain means, but they can't justify them. One must always act morally.

The ends never justify the means.