The Worth of an Action

My purpose in writing this paper is to illustrate the most important factors in determining the moral worth of an action. There are several arguments and views, however I will utilize only three. First, there's Mill's utilitarian view, which argues that it's the consequences of an act that decide the action's moral worth. Next, there is Kant's view, which states that it is the will of the person performing the act that determines the action's moral worth. Lastly, some may believe that it is the character of the person who performed the act that determines its moral worth. I, however, am not inclined to subscribe to any one of these arguments in particular, but to argue that moral worth should determined on a case by case basis utilizing the view or views which will maximize the moral worth of the given situation. I will support my argument by analyzing each of the three aforementioned arguments, and then providing examples of situations where each view will be applied to illustrate which view maximized the moral worth (of the situation).

Mill's view, also known as Utilitarianism, states that the morality of an action is determined by its accomplished result/consequence. Mill believed that actions should be judged according to the results achieved. He also believed that happiness should not be simply one's own, but that of the greatest number. For Mill, the end result was the only concern and to what extreme taken to reach this result was of no matter. One implication of Utilitarianism is that every time one makes a decision, one tries to take into account all the possible results of that action.

Kant's view deciphers moral worth by examining a person's motivation for performing an act regardless of the consequences. The Kantian view states that the only pure good is pure

human reason without consequences. A truly good act as defined by Kant is performed because of an obligation to the categorical imperative. KantÐ'Ò's theory distinguishes acts done from inclination and obligation. Acts of inclination are shallow personal actions and acts of obligation are more of a duty.

Now let's look at two examples and apply each view. In doing so it is my goal to illustrate that one view can't be considered universal.

First example: I have promised my mother and father that I will baby-sit for them, but then I get invited to a party that takes place on the same evening(which I would much rather do than babysit ). Acting as a moral person, I would stay in and look after my sister, fulfilling my duty. I would be ignoring my empirical will choosing instead my rational will. Kant argued that a person is only acting morally when they suppress their feelings or inclinations and sticks to their obligations. This then raises the question why on some occasions have I gone to the party and arranged another babysitter; does this mean that I am completely immoral and does that therefore make me an irrational person?

Second Example: I have been standing in line outside for hours waiting to buy tickets to XYZ's