Is it justifiable to perform an act that is not in itself evil but produces mixed consequences?

Question

Some of them beneficial and others harmful?

Answer 1

Every one of us does this to some degree every single day. Some effects we can measure and identify, others we cannot. Technically, every act ever performed has had mixed consequences.

Did WWII begin because of Hitler? Or because of the Treaty of Versailles that pissed him off? Are people poor because they make bad choices, or because their parents didn't raise them well? All depends on your perspective.

We will never know all the consequences of our actions, but to not act is to lead a boring, eventless, anxious life. And of course, our refusal to take action can also have consequences. How convoluted, eh?

All we can do is educate ourselves as much as possible and make the best decisions we can at the time.

Answer 2

If the implications are foreseeable and inevitable, then they ought to be seen area of the act. So, for this reason, the act itself will become "evil" (regardless of which potential) because of the fact the act and the implications are one and the comparable. as an occasion, the act of pulling a series off isn't evil, yet while the inevitable results of this act is that a bullet is fired right into a new child, then you definately can no longer logically get rid of the morality of the act from the morality of the implications. If the outcomes are no longer inevitable or foreseeable, then we are into murky territory.