Claim: An action is morally correct if the amount of good that results from the action is greater than the amount of bad that results from the action.
Reason: When assessing the morality of an action, the results of an action are more important than the intent of the person or people performing that action.
The argument says,actions are morally correct only if good results are generated and the intent of the person is not the main criteria. I disagree with the claim. No matter what the results are a persons intent should not be deleterious for others. My claims are based on various reasons that i will discuss-out further.
Firstly, i would like to cite an example of India, were recently a flood disaster occurred in the state of Kerala. People from all over the country joined in to give and help the state recover for the disaster. Schools , colleges, offices and many individual started donating. But if a celebrity is donating 5 lakhs INR for the case and some other person not earning that much thinks that his contribution wont make a difference then he is wrong. Even a single contribution of mere 100 INR matters as it will collectively become even more than what the celebrity contributed. There is a maxim "little drop make the mighty sea" the same way if each and every person in the country donates 100-200 INR it will collectively make a huge amount. This proves the intent of the person matters and not what result it produces.
Another example, NGO are created for supporting a cause in which a collective group of people believe. Lets take an example for NGOs for cancer patient or for child education. These NGOs can not help every affected victim in the country but they always try their best to serve as many people as possible. If the group of people starting these NGOs think like what is the point as their organization is not going to to be able to help majority of the people, then the NGOs would never have been created.
A person should not think if the result their contribution is going to make, they should just do good deed with good intent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 18, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , actions
The argument says,actions are morally correct only if good result...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 294, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
...laims are based on various reasons that i will discuss-out further. Firstly...
^
Line 5, column 10, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
...ill discuss-out further. Firstly, i would like to cite an example of India,...
^
Line 5, column 219, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... state recover for the disaster. Schools , colleges, offices and many individual s...
^^
Line 5, column 244, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun individual seems to be countable; consider using: 'many individuals'.
Suggestion: many individuals
...saster. Schools , colleges, offices and many individual started donating. But if a celebrity is...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 104, Rule ID: LETS_LET[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Let's'?
Suggestion: Let's
...h a collective group of people believe. Lets take an example for NGOs for cancer pat...
^^^^
Line 9, column 413, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: to
...oint as their organization is not going to to be able to help majority of the people,...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 479, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[7]
Message: The adverb 'never' is usually put between 'have' and 'been'.
Suggestion: have never been
...rity of the people, then the NGOs would never have been created. A person should not think...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, so, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 11.3162921348 35% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 33.0505617978 61% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 58.6224719101 48% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1480.0 2235.4752809 66% => OK
No of words: 315.0 442.535393258 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.69841269841 5.05705443957 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.55969084622 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5220149098 2.79657885939 90% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 215.323595506 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.549206349206 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 459.9 704.065955056 65% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.38483146067 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.78908968 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.5 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6875 23.4991977007 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.0625 5.21951772744 40% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 7.80617977528 102% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.115012171031 0.243740707755 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0388125736712 0.0831039109588 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0353129871093 0.0758088955206 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.076190525207 0.150359130593 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.041875925606 0.0667264976115 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 14.1392134831 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.98 12.1639044944 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.38706741573 94% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 100.480337079 66% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 11.8971910112 55% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.