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 claim asserts that if the amount of good that results from an action is greater than the amount of bad then the action is correct and reasons this claim by stating that the morality of an action is based on the result of the action rather than on the intent of the person. In my opinion, the claim is partially agreeable but cannot be fully agreed upon. There are two reasons of disagreeing with the claim which i would like to illustrated further.
The intent of person whether good or bad does not influence the morality of action as the results of the action are important or worthier. What happens if a person murders a politician for the good of society? Is it that the action is still worthier or the intent of the person matters? In my thoughts, the intent of the person highly matters as if one commits a crime and the results of it at the end are fruitful or good but the intent was bad and this will further lead the society to deteriorate the condition of livelihood. As the person who commits crime would think that his action was correct as it resulted in the good to society and would not have any guilt of killing a politician. This is totally nuisance as to what is the law and police made for? If one complains about the politician, the case could have been look upon with all the rules and regulations to be followed but killing the politician is totally inscrutable and out of action. Therefore, every result of action is not more important than the intent of the person.
Actually, the intent of the person should be taken into more consideration. If the amount of good that results from action is greater than the amount of bad performing them then the action is morally correct as stated. To look back at the past, many great historically leaders fought till dead to protect their territory but at the end there were few who deliberately killed thousands of the civilians only to make the other side leader feel demoralised and to step back. Is this behaviour of killing innocent civilians right? No, it is not right? So, the amount of bad which they caused cannot be foreseen on the amount of good which they gained as the other side suffered great loss of human in order to protect their territory which was invaded by the cruel army.
In the conclusion, the claim needs further elabotration as to what kind of action are morally correct is it all kind of action even if it costs someone their lives or whether is it the normal causal actions. Therefore, nothing should be neglected every aspect of action should be taken into consideration be it the result or the intent of the actions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 417, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
...ons of disagreeing with the claim which i would like to illustrated further. T...
^
Line 5, column 77, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...hould be taken into more consideration. If the amount of good that results from ac...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, if, look, so, still, then, therefore, as to, kind of, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.5258426966 164% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2151.0 2235.4752809 96% => OK
No of words: 474.0 442.535393258 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.53797468354 5.05705443957 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44190907653 2.79657885939 87% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 215.323595506 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.400843881857 0.4932671777 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 669.6 704.065955056 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.9177127274 60.3974514979 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.210526316 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9473684211 23.4991977007 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.31578947368 5.21951772744 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.491735952526 0.243740707755 202% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.158549186531 0.0831039109588 191% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.212119798663 0.0758088955206 280% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.333186563174 0.150359130593 222% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.156787193014 0.0667264976115 235% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 48.8420337079 131% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.35 12.1639044944 77% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.43 8.38706741573 89% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 100.480337079 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.