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 claim of the author asserts that if the results produce more benefits in comparison to the detriments, then the action is morally justifiable. Although it is the result that matters in the end, the intention of an action is equally significant as that. The author believes that an action is morally acceptable as long as it produces favorable results, even if the intentions were not propelled to do so. It is difficult to agree with such an ideology, especially when ethics and morality are concerned.
According to the author, the deleterious results of an action are inconsequential as long as the beneficial results are significant. However, the degree of "goodness" of a result might vary from person to person. A result might be good for someone while at the same time it could be bad for others. If, for a moment, such an ideology is accepted; then every criminal is innocent, since his/her actions could have produced good results for someone. For example, a burglar, who steals money from a wealthy person becomes innocent from the view of the burglar's family; since it produces more good results than bad results. Thus, accepting such a claim could generate drastic ramifications that could challenge the fundamental principle of law.
The author also believes that the morality of the actions should be judged from results rather than the intentions. While this reason does express pragmatism, the statement itself contradicts the basic definition of mortality. According to the author, the people who intended to be criminals or lawbreakers, are morally and ethically sound, since they somehow were unable to complete the intended action.
Therefore, in conclusion, the claim of the author is unacceptable, since the ideology could hurt and stigmatize the law and order. The author does not take into account the various perspectives before making such an extreme claim.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 259, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'someone' must be used with a third-person verb: 'whiles'.
Suggestion: whiles
...son. A result might be good for someone while at the same time it could be bad for ot...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 560, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'burglars'' or 'burglar's'?
Suggestion: burglars'; burglar's
...n becomes innocent from the view of the burglars family; since it produces more good res...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 406, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...unable to complete the intended action. Therefore, in conclusion, the claim of t...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 232, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...es before making such an extreme claim.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, so, then, therefore, thus, while, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 14.8657303371 34% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 33.0505617978 48% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 58.6224719101 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 3.0 12.9106741573 23% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1599.0 2235.4752809 72% => OK
No of words: 307.0 442.535393258 69% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20846905537 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.55969084622 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93090473209 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 215.323595506 75% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.524429967427 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 503.1 704.065955056 71% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Article: 12.0 4.99550561798 240% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 27.5619705794 60.3974514979 46% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 106.6 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4666666667 23.4991977007 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.26666666667 5.21951772744 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.426460711775 0.243740707755 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.148631068065 0.0831039109588 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104288760155 0.0758088955206 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.242785103833 0.150359130593 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.118447938476 0.0667264976115 178% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.1392134831 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 100.480337079 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => 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: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.