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 the action are more important than the intent of the person or people performing the action. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim AND the reason on which that claim is based.
The author claims that actions are morally justified if its good results overshadows the bad ones, irrespective of the intent of the person or people performing the action. However, this claim seems too broad and far fetched and fails to encompass diversity of actions and intents that are associated with humans. I partially agree with the author for the reasons that I'll discuss below.
Firstly, we must acknowledge the fact that the world is highly mutable and dynamic, and human intelligence cannot accurately prognosticate the results of one's actions, irrespective of his intent. In such a scenario,a bad intention may lead to good results, or a good intention may lead to bad results. Hence, judging morality of a person's action solely on the basis of results is fundamentally flawed. For example, when Albert Einstein discovered the relation between energy and mass, in his popular theory of relativity, he did not thought that his discovery could have lead to such widespread destruction, as it facilitated invention of nuclear bombs. Clearly, his discoveries caused more harm than good, but concluding that Einstein's actions were morally flawed or unjustified is just accusing him for a crime he didn't commit. Hence, humans are prone to errors and judging them by their results, ignoring their intent is not justified at all.
Secondly, if we take a closer look at human history, we could find sufficient evidence which could bolster the claim that morality, intent and results of actions are not inter-related in many scenarios. For example, while electing a leader, if we consider traits like abstinence from alcohol, treating women equally, getting up early etc as morally sound, we would have ended up electing Hitler, as opposed to Abraham Lincoln, who was a bibulous, used to get up late and indulged in procrastination. Hence, morals, intents and actions should better be judged individually, rather than correlating outcomes of each other.
Lastly, we must also acknowledge the fact that humans are highly adaptive beings, hence our thoughts and motives change according to the environment and the scenario in which one is placed. An action considered morally just one day may be considered a crime some other day. For example, several decades back, child marriage was considered normal in the Indian society, but has been declared as an offence during the recent times. Hence, with the ever changing definitions of "whats morally correct", actions and intents should rather be judged accordingly.
Hence, we can conclude that human tend to commit mistakes and judging a person solely by their actions is not appropriate. But on the other hand, judging a person on intent and morals isn't justified either, as these traits don't generally inter-relate. Moreover, it is the mutable nature of "what right and what's not" that confounds the definition of morals
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 155, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...accurately prognosticate the results of ones actions, irrespective of his intent. In...
^^^^
Line 3, column 215, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , a
...ective of his intent. In such a scenario,a bad intention may lead to good results,...
^^
Line 3, column 332, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
...d results. Hence, judging morality of a persons action solely on the basis of results i...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 534, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'think'
Suggestion: think
...opular theory of relativity, he did not thought that his discovery could have lead to s...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 817, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ied is just accusing him for a crime he didnt commit. Hence, humans are prone to erro...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 868, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t. Hence, humans are prone to errors and judging them by their results, ignoring ...
^^
Line 7, column 482, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: what's
... the ever changing definitions of 'whats morally correct', actions and inte...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 184, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d, judging a person on intent and morals isnt justified either, as these traits d...
^^
Line 9, column 186, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
... judging a person on intent and morals isnt justified either, as these traits dont ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 225, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... isnt justified either, as these traits dont generally inter-relate. Moreover, it is...
^^^^
Line 9, column 313, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: what's
... mutable nature of 'what right and whats not' that confounds the definition...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, lastly, look, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, while, for example, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2441.0 2235.4752809 109% => OK
No of words: 464.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26077586207 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64119157421 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81438700074 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 215.323595506 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560344827586 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 756.9 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Interrogative: 3.0 0.740449438202 405% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.6268234785 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.473684211 118.986275619 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4210526316 23.4991977007 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.78947368421 5.21951772744 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 7.80617977528 141% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.299518781211 0.243740707755 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0964200920885 0.0831039109588 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.092729471565 0.0758088955206 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171511889872 0.150359130593 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0610117182031 0.0667264976115 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.46 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 100.480337079 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.