Action theory vs virtue theory
Is it simply about good moral actions or should we make a broader consideration of one’s
character or personality?
Should we simply assess actions or is the inner life of the agent and all of the considerations
and motives prior to the action also important?
Kant emphasises the importance of the inner life – an action can only be moral if it is done
out of ‘good will’?
Why do motives and character matter?
Responsibility – there is an element of luck in what the actual outcome or effect of an action
is. Arguably the only thing we are completely responsible for is our will or intention.
Intention vs. motive
 Intention is what the agent wants to arise from the action. It is the answer to the
question “what are you doing?”. It is a description of what one is hoping to achieve
from an action.
 The motive is the explanation of why one does something. Why does one have a
certain intention?
Intentions can be relevant to consequentialism as they are relevant to consequences. They
are the foreshadowing of consequences and they can be judged by a consequentialist
framework.
Motives don’t matter to consequentialism though.
Deontology maintains that actions have intrinsic value whereas consequentialism believes
that actions only have extrinsic value
There are no boundaries with consequentialism – no absolute prohibition on any action
regardless of how bad it may be – e.g. organ harvesting, killing an innocent person, breaking
a promise etc.
Consequentialism is useful in that it can apply to any scenario and provides a simplistic
framework for morally evaluating actions