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 end justifies the means"- is a widely known but controversial saying. The claim and the reasoning of the prompt seems to be aptly summarized by the aforementioned saying. From a moralistic point of view, I can not completely agree with such a claim and the reason on which this claim is based.
The claim attempts to justify the moral uprightness of an action simply based on its consequences or results. It also abstractly refers to the amount of good and bad that results from an action. Every action has certain consequences of different scale and proportion. The consequences or the results of an action can sometimes be predicted and sometimes they are simply unpredictable and random. For example, the outcome of rolling a die is completely random and can not be accurately predicted. As such, how can we predict or justify the moral correctness of an action which has random and unpredictable consequences? If we take all of our actions simply based on the final result then the consequences are sometimes devastating, as can be observed from the life of Adolph Hitler. Adolph Hitler, a German military general, thought that world peace can be achieved simply by eradicating the Jewish population. He killed almost 6 million Jews. This action was justified by Hitler based on its final outcome which he presumed to be world peace.
Moreover, who should have the right to determine the good and the bad that results from an action? An outcome that is favorable to one person might be quite the opposite for another. For example, construction of a factory for an automation industry near a forest might be a huge benefiting factor in the economic growth of a country but it may also be quite harmful for the wildlife and the residents around that forest whose livelihood depends upon the forest resources. Hence, the construction can not simply be justified based on its outcome. There is no gold standard or universal scale through which we can measure the amount of good or bad that results from an action.
The reason provided for the claim posits that the intention of the person performing an action is not as important as the results of that action. This is a very dubious and unjustifiable reasoning in my opinion. If a person intends to trip another person and injure them by placing a banana skin on the floor but the other person fortunately avoids this trap, can this action be justified? The answer is a big fat no.
In the light of the above discussion, we can conclude that the end does not always justify the means.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-04 | Aishwarya01 | 54 | view |
| 2023-07-13 | Technoblade | 66 | view |
| 2022-09-12 | Sumilak | 66 | view |
| 2022-08-21 | headboy | 50 | view |
| 2022-06-07 | Jaichiddharth R K | 50 | view |
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station Over the past year our late night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news During this time period most of the complain 58
- All too often companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees such consultants would be unnecessary Write a response in which you discuss 50
- An ailing patient should have easy access to his or her doctor s record of treating similarly afflicted patients Through gaining such access the ailing patient may better determine whether the doctor is competent to treat that medical condition Write a re 54
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In 66
- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in Masontown If we want to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees we need to encourage our residents to recycle more Late last year our neighboring town Hayesworth passed a law r 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, may, moreover, so, then, for example, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 58.6224719101 82% => 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: 2124.0 2235.4752809 95% => OK
No of words: 439.0 442.535393258 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.83826879271 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57737117129 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80081282627 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 215.323595506 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466970387244 0.4932671777 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 666.0 704.065955056 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.8150703202 60.3974514979 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.347826087 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0869565217 23.4991977007 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.17391304348 5.21951772744 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.365239020897 0.243740707755 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.127583575371 0.0831039109588 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.147604250213 0.0758088955206 195% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174191989997 0.150359130593 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.120581271167 0.0667264976115 181% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.1392134831 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 12.1639044944 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 100.480337079 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.