What is more important, intentions or result?

[tychoseven]

The Problem with ends based utilitarianism is that it holds you to an imposibly high moral standard and requires that you give away pretty much all you own to people starving to death in africa.

Let us suppose that by not donating your money to starving people in Africa, 1/3 of the population dies. That would be bad, correct? However, with a reduced population food requirements are now 2/3 what they used to be, and the survivors no longer starve. In the long term, they are stable instead of dependent on foreign handouts. I'm not suggesting that one not help others, merely that we look at the end result and not the means. In this hypothetical situation aid would actually be negative, whereas the loss of population balances needs and food production. Giving money might make you feel good, but if you truly want to improve the situation you must put away morals and do what is needed.

-Tycho-