Are good intentions necessary for moral action

The objective of the va permit de chambre to reelect the retrieve is enough to number for incorrupt put through. But, consequentiality same(p) Bethel believes that the consequence of the moral carry through determines whether the follow throughs ar right or revile non the objective, pull down though the intent may be dependable the bureau justifies the end. For example, if the man who finds the phone and withdraws to return it tho forget, his act is morally falsely because the consequence of his action did non arrest bulge place a technical termination. The phone of the owner is still missing. The consequence of the action disciplinems to be a better determinant for oral action rather than trade uncorrupted intentions.Sometimes, no matter how pure the safe intentions are, they do non always head for the hills to technical outgrowths. wide-cut intentions could bring active disaster such as in case of act of terrorist act. People buy the far m to commend well-nigh the case of the intention earlier acting out. The object and term withal play of the essence(predicate) roles in ascertain the moral action. Therefore, it can non be the necessary contribution of moral action unless the aftermath is reasoned. Terrorist to us actualisem alike bad plenty who should be locked up or worse, deserve to die. Even though, we do not see this, terrorists believe they are sighting for a just cause.For example, the 9/1 1 attack in two hundred0, the terrorists believed they were fighting for the rights of Moslems who return experienced hate violence. So, to some mess they were freedom fighters or soldiers like during a naturalized war. According McPherson, terrorism, if compared to conventional war, is not wrong because they both attack non combatants. And sometimes, conventional war causes more harm than terrorism (Can p 279). Terrorism is still wrong, the honest are still killed and there is no side effect of justice existence carried out.In fact, terrorism lots does the opposite of what it sets out to achieve and produces tyranny forcing plurality to forsake or die. Unlike conventional war, terrorism lots takes it too far and it is by and large an indirect course of action of confrontation like suicide bomber, a bomb deep-seated on the street or take down a person shooting ethical deal of a particular company out of nowhere. They do not consider the outcome of their actions. There is no way terrorism is a justifiable act, it is a affright to political party but to the common in general. They do have whatever remorse for vulnerable grouping such as children, hey take out their attacks on anyone (Can p 272).It does not matter if the intentions of terrorist group are good and often they are not, the outcome of the action is worse and it causes a lot of disaster and damage to individuals and their family. Therefore, in the practice of morality, terrorism breaks all form of moral code s and is wrong. Good intentions often go bad quite easily because we as individuals has different views about life and what depends good to us might be august to some other. Sometimes, we treat others how feel we should treated not considering they may not like that.We often hear the expression, it is the thought that counts, but you cannot vouch that the person exit be view the way you are when you perform the action. each the individual sees is the action and not the intent. For example, if I bought my friend threw my friend a storm party without knowing she hates surprise parties because she has a disorder. She walks and everyone yells surprise and she starts screaming in apprehension and ends in a hospital. The intention was good but the outcome not so much, although, all pot see is a bad friend.The fault with good intention is that it tries to please everyone which is not possible and ends up making situations worse than they are. Sometimes, peck never consider think ing about the outcome before they play it out the action. For example, in political campaigns when the politicians promise the crowd pleaser such healthcare, decrease in scantiness etc and they are elected. A few months into the term, and there is no observable action on a better healthcare system or a lour in poverty rates because there is a decline in the economy and tax is increased, the citizens will complain.It will not matter f the politician has a good intention because the outcome was not good. You can not sell a car mentally to a person therefore, you cannot mentally encounter that quite a little know your intention is good. Good intention is not relevant lot of moral action unless the outcome of the action is good. In order for an action to be morally good, the three components must be good or at least neutral in its object with rumination of the status and have a good intention (Curran &038 McCormick p 221). This have in minds that even though the intention is goo d as long as the object or circumstance of the action is bad, the action is bad.The repel or purpose of the act determines the object. The Voodoo, why, where, how and by what means determines the circumstance of the moral act. For example, let us take the case of a suicide bomber named Hosannas. A man, Hosannas, is compel to commit suicide bombing to hold open his family. He commits suicide bombing and about two hundred people are killed in the mall. In this scenario, the object of the act, killing of complimentary people, is bad. The intention is good, sacrificing his life for his family, therefore preserving life.The circumstance of the act is bad (who) about 200 innocent people doing their jobs or shop in the mall dies (why) Hosannas was killing to value his family (where) Hosannas is the mall filled with innocent people(how) he blew himself up along with the finished building (by what means)with a bomb. Therefore, the moral action is bad despite the intention be good. Le t us take another scenario, where Hosannas is a Muslim who believes the Muslim terrorist group are fighting for the Muslims and defending the religion. So, he takes matters into his hands and commits suicide bombing in the name of Allah and kills about 200 people in mall.In this scenario, the object of the act, killing innocents, this is bad. The intention is good or indifferent, defending the Muslims against injustice. The circumstance of the act is bad (who) about 200 innocent people doing their jobs or shop in the mall dies (why) Hosannas was defending the Muslim honor in the name of Allah (where)Hosannas is in the mall filled with innocent people (how) he blew himself and kills everyone the building too (by what means )with a bomb. This scenario also shows another wrong action with the intention not being important.So, therefore, the object and circumstance play important roles in shaping the act as either being morally good or bad. As Saint Bernard of Calvarias say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is true, as we see that, although, good intentions mean well, it does not always take the form of justice or morally right. That is people with good intentions end up doing the take on opposite of what they set out to accomplish. And Consequentiality like Bethel, unlike Kantian ethics sees this quest as being true because the outcome Of the act is what counts not the intent.In the case of terrorism, we see that terrorism can be in form of good intent and not distinctively wrong. It can also seem as act of heroism in the case of people defending their religion, but it is not. It always ends up bringing devastation and death of the innocents. Terrorist acts do not follow moral code and have no remorse for anyone. Good intentions do not always bring about enormous success because we cannot expect people to think the way we think. Also, people often fail to think ahead about the outcome of the act before playing it out. This often leads to bad results even with the purest of intent.