Intentions and Morals

             John Mill states that, “…the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much with the worth of the agent” (20). According to utilitarianism, every action has the same value no matter what the intention is.  I think that the purpose of an action has everything to do with if it had moral principles. Religious people will also most likely feel strongly about this as well. According to Christian scriptures, God strongly thinks that it’s very important to know the meanings of an action so that one can know if that person had moral purposes. I know that some might argue, like the author from Metaethical Issues, that morality doesn't depend on religion but it definitely plays a big part. One of his objections also didn't make sense, so his argument didn't prove to be very convincing.

                Also, utilitarianism is when an action is determined if it’s moral by its consequences. There are some instances when you might do a good deed but have the wrong intentions, and as a result could displease people. Furthermore, utilitarianism separates ones’ purposes and if the act was wrong or right; basically, they are in two different categories according to utilitarians. There is a flaw in this argument because many believe what determines how right or wrong an action is by the objectives that were used behind it. Essentially, there is a lot of controversy with this situation in ethics. For instance, Kant sees intentions as valuable to the morality of someone’s actions. On the other hand, utilitarianism only focuses on the consequences.