Morality Lesson: Intentions vs. Consequences

Most of us, Christian or otherwise, judge the morality of others by their intentions. For example, former president Jimmy Carter (and, more recently, Christine O'Donnell) said that, because he felt lust for other women, he had already committed adultery in his heart, even though he had never acted on it.

Nietzsche, however, claimed that this was not always the case, and that there was a time in human history when the morality of a person was based on the consequences of his actions alone, and not on his intentions. Additionally, he claimed that, in the context of human history as a whole, this was a rather new development, and he claimed that it started with the Israelites. Without getting into an in-depth discussion of Nietzsche's moral philosophy - something that would really warrant a book-length tome - I want to focus on the intention/consequence dichotomy.

Since we here in America are still basking in the fading glow of the holiday season, let's use an example that you could easily encounter on any street in a large city - like Manhattan, for instance: Let's say that John is a man in his 30's who recently lost his job, his home, and his wife - and he has no family to which he could turn for support. He is now living on the streets of Manhattan because no one will hire him - not only is he homeless without access to a shower or clean clothes, but the economy is still in the worst recession in memory.

However, let's say for the sake of argument that all John needs is $1,000 to get him back on his feet and put his life together - enough to give him a fresh start and enable him to find cheap housing so he can clean himself up for a job search, etc. John is walking the streets of Manhattan, soliciting for handouts. It's been tough, because John is a fairly good-looking man, he's relatively young, in good physical shape, and his clothes aren't really that dirty yet (too dirty to get a job, but not dirty enough that someone would think he's destitute) - so people don't believe he's really homeless. They think it's a scam.

And then along comes Frank, a middle-aged, "self-made" entrepreneur whose net worth is counted in the tens of millions. Frank believes he owes nothing to his genetic endowment, society, political organization, or the age in which he lives - he believes everything he has is entirely his own possession and not subject to be taken away by anyone's wish or whim - no one else is entitled to the fruits of his labor. It's cold, so he's wearing a long Armani top coat. In his right pocket is a copy of the Declaration of Independence; in his left pocket is a copy of Atlas Shrugged - abridged version.

As Frank comes upon a melancholy John, he begins to think that this would be an opportunity for him to both increase his feeling of power as well as the sum of pleasurable feelings over disagreeable ones. What I mean is, and what Nietzsche thought was the case, is that "we benefit and show benevolence to those who are already dependent upon us in some way; we want to increase their power because in that way we increase ours."

Basically, you could say that, by being benevolent toward those less fortunate, you raise yourself up in the eyes of others as well as yourself. You are giving out of your abundance. Your cup runneth o'er, etc. In terms of feelings, you might feel good by helping someone. It is a pleasurable state of mind. I've long thought that this is what happens with most people when they help the poor, etc., whether they realize it or not. But in our case, let's assume that Frank is motivated by the former and not the latter.

Frank reads John's sign saying he needs $1,000 to get his life back on track, asks him if this is indeed the case, and, having received a reply in the affirmative, hands over 10 $100 bills to John and continues on his way without saying anything further. John does indeed get his life back on track and all's well that ends well.

There is no dispute that Frank helped John, helped him completely and precisely in the way he needed to be helped. Let's further assume that all of Frank's money was legitimately earned, no one - not even animals - was harmed in the earning of this money. Not only has Frank succeeded in increasing the total sum of "good" in the world (something you could attribute to a form of Utilitarianism), you could also include the pleasurable, or positive, feelings within Frank himself in this sum.

Let's assume that we know Frank's motivation - we know he helped John for selfish reasons. It wasn't simply out of the goodness of his heart, or from "fellow feeling." It wasn't the holiday music being piped out of the store near where John was standing, it wasn't because Frank had seen It's a Wonderful Life the night before, and it wasn't out of respect for any religious doctrine - Frank is an atheist. It was simple self-interest - just like John Galt.

Can we consider Frank to be a moral person? If not, why not?