“The wicked conceive evil; they are pregnant with trouble and give birth to lies.” – Psalm 7:14

While I generally subscribe to the utilitarian maxim of “the greatest good for the greatest number,” I find myself at odds with the idea that the morality of any action can be determined solely by its results. Intent is crucial in determining the morality of an action, for even objectively good results are immorally attained if carried out with evil in mind. 

Intent, to me, is entirely separate from results. I would even go so far as to say that results on their own cannot be moral or immoral – they may be positive, negative, or neutral, but they are simply devoid of any measure of morality. Results are simply results, the effect from a cause. 

Intent, on the other hand, gives life to the cause. Intent is a conscious choice, and thus morality can be ascribed to it. However separated results are from morality, however, does not separate an effect from its cause. 

This debate may be summed up in one question: Do the ends justify the means? In my opinion, they often do not. This is admittedly a blanket answer, and I acknowledge that there are countless exceptions, but by and large one must attain results in an ethical and moral manner in order to call that action wholly “good.”

In the world of journalism, there exists a written code of ethics that every newsroom should have posted within it. Ours certainly does. No story is worth trampling over another person’s rights. An ethical journalist cannot steal documents in order to publish a story. Even if that story uncovers untold corruption, it will forever be an ill-gotten gain if the method in which the story came to be was unethical. 

One could consider the miscreant journalist here to have had good intent, but their actions were still immoral and unethical. Let us return to what I wrote earlier, that intent gives life to a cause. This is true, for intent is not the entirety of a cause. A cause consists also of action, and an action can still be immoral while fueled by good intent. 

Similarly, an action with evil intent that inadvertently produces a positive outcome cannot be considered moral. No matter the outcome, the intent behind the action was immoral, and had the results been what were intended, they would have been negative. 

One example from my own life would be those who ran me out of the church. That was done with evil intent, and it left me isolated for quite some time. But I eventually left the church and was able to reform myself by analyzing my own worldview. The ultimately good result does not retroactively make their actions justified. 

If anything, that idea may even be insulting to those who do ultimately benefit from inadvertently positive results. There are millions of people who have been dealt a bad hand, but through determination and perseverance have forged a path forward. At no point do their choices cancel out their trauma. 

There may also be an argument for the true immorality of an action taken in retribution for a truly evil act. I hesitate to make any solid statement on this, but a child who lies to their abusive parent is certainly blameless. Such an action is self-defensive in the face of undue abuse. However, this idea must be handled with the utmost care, for it can quickly be twisted into justifying the most heinous of acts, even in the face of truly cruel injustice. 

These are almost never easy conversations or decisions. Morality can be vague like that. But the simple rule of “One’s will ends where another’s will begins” is a solid foundation.