Motives Make Rightness

On page 224-225, Hurka argues that a person who accidentally kills someone, though with good intentions, can be morally wrong. I would like to extend this example: rather than simply trying to save someone's life via a drug that kills someone, an individual has a choice: give a drug to someone, where it is known that the drug will either save the life of a patient or kill that patient. The individual administering the drug is, for whatever reason, led to believe that the patient does in fact need the drug. If the individual administering the drug has every reason to believe that the patient needs the drug, then administering the drug seems like a moral imperative and the right thing to do, even if the action turns out to end up taking a life.

Rightness comes from doing what one genuinely believes should be done to cause good in the world. Even if this action ends up being harmful, as long as the individual had good intentions, the individual was doing something morally right. Doing both what seems morally right and what actually causes good in the world is, perhaps, the virtuous thing to do. Defining the two adjectives, virtuous and right, in these ways shows proper appreciation for both good intentions and good actions.