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 i

Some people claim that to determine whether an action is morally correct, people just need to compare its good result and bad outcome because the result of the action are more important than the intent of the person or people performing the action. Personally, I do not agree with this claim because to judge whether an action is moral, there are some other restrictions which we need to take into account such as the basic right of human. Besides, the outcome of an action is sometimes very hard to compare.

First of all, moral action should be limited within a specail degree which can never ignore people's basic right such as life. But those rights can be overlooked if we only consider about the outcome of an behavior. For example, there is a very famous question asking that if five person are trapped in sea and cannot land within several days. At the same time, they have eaten up all their food. In that situation, if they kill a person and eat him, the others will survive, or all the five will dead. Within the five person, their is a little boy, so the other four man think he is the best choice to kill because he cannot fight against the others. If we only consider about the outcome, we should agree that the boy should be killed; however, whether that is a moral behavior? The answer is definitely not. No one has the right to kill the others, because that is the primary right to everyone. That question is left unsolved, however, we should agree that outcome is not the only way to juge an action.

Besides, the outcome of an action is very hard to compare in some time. We know that lost food, house or something special is bad outcome and we also admire that physical injury is also a kind of terrible result that everyone wants to avoid. However, if we are in era with war, whether those principles are still tenable? Maybe we should think about it according to the special situation. For example, in World War II, several country are fight against Nazi and Hitler. Among them, Russian, who has less weapons and relatively undeveloped technology comparing to German fought against their enemy by thousands of lives. If we only evaluate the outcome, that action is stupid. During that period uncounted housed were ruined, and thousands of mother lost their son. However, their action do help maintain their right to their county and gave other country enough time to prepare. Therefore, result of an action is very hard to compare, especial when we compare the subject with some spiral benefit.

However, some opponents espousing that in some case, the outcome of an action are more important than the intent of personaly. While, that is also very difficult to say in that way. Every person is a independent human who live in the earth. There is no reason to state that something is more important than the personal intent. The only think can influence one's behavior should be his or her own willing.

To sum up, it is unreasonable to state that we should compare the outcome of an action to determine whether that action is moral. Because sometimes, the comparison is very hard to operate. Besides, there are plenty of other things are more valuable than the result.