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

Proponents of the claim that any action is morally correct if the total amount of "good" that results supercedes the amount of "bad" that results have reasoned that this is because the results of an action are paramount to the intent of the action. While this claim holds true in rare situations, for the most part, the intent is just as important as the results that ensue an action.

First, although it may always seem correct to assert that results of an action are the only determining factor of morality, there are many instances where the action itself crosses the line of morality irregardless of the results. In the 1950's, a now famous baby named Albert was a part of many pyschological experiments to determine what made a baby cry. These tests resulted in important data that is still used today in raising a child. Children around the world have benefited from the tests with Albert. However, Albert did not grow up to be a healthy adult and eventually Albert took his own life in 1972. It was concluded that the tests that were done to Albert as a baby actually lead to his sad demise as an adult. Thus, although the results of the Albert tests may have proved beneficial to humanity, the reality is that those tests were quite immoral and destructive.

Second, years after WWII, all of humanity has technologically benefited from the Nazi's skills in building new devices and strategies. It can be overwhelmingly asserted that the mission of the Nazi party was immoral. They wanted to take over the world, regardless of however many innocent people they killed. The author reasons that the morality of an action should be determined from the results, not the intent. So should we consider the Nazi's as moral just because their development of technologies lead to radio, modern internet, radar, and logistic strategies for distribution of goods? No, what the Nazi's did was not moral, even though the result of their evil actions has brought an abundance of technological wealth to the modern world.

Although the example of a nuclear bomb over Japan in WWII may have seemed to be beneficial to society because it ended the war, the reality is that many millions of innocent people died.

In a final analysis, it may seem correct to assert that it is only the results of an action that determines the morallity of that action, but the truth is that the morallity of an action should be determined as it is happening, not just in hindsight. For the examples stated above, I completly disagree with the notion that the results are the only screening factor for what is moral or not.