Kantian ethics is morally base. A anology

In Kant on Moral Worth / Is Kant ideas moral or morally base. I said that I thought Kantian ethics is morally base. I share that " to me one is commanded by there own essence. Who they are and not what they are ". Source A slightly more important understanding about what I said is the following

 "Some people are easily lead. Wanting some mommy or daddy figure to  comfort them with directions. They are still people, but wanting in  character and will. Some people neither want nor accept someones  directions. They too are still people, just self sufficient."

You can read my source for Kantian Ethics KANTIAN ETHICS - California State University.

You see to me if your intent is to support good that is nice, but if the consequences are evil intent doesn't make you moral.

One of the sad occurrences of our time is the liar's justifying the lie's through their intent. To me intent is not something one can know because the motivation and intent both have a history that only the intend er knows.

To be fair to Kant, I must disclose that I have not directly read Kant's writings and sadly the shillary in the sources explanation creates the logical condition that the source is bias and perhaps slanting Kantian views, ,because I have made claims based upon what was provided and am now bound to support my claims using logic and reason or be as morally base as the source claims make Kant seem.

As I have said, intent to do good is not the same thing as doing good and in this case I think that it is the doing of good that makes one moral. One has a duty to right the wrongs when what they intend turns out to not be the good intended. Thus intent cannot be what decides the moral worth of a person. If you take apart the analogy provided by KANTIAN ETHICS - California State University one discovers a red herring. The red herring is the idea that the giving of charity to feed starving children makes the giver responsible for the actions of the rebels. Who would ever do good works if they are responsible for the decisions and actions of others. 

The truth versus the liars will be the moral right and wrong. The primiss are stated one positively and one negatively showing that  morally there is only one direction that is moral. Then I ask a question about being a liar and discus what Kantian Ethics as presented by KANTIAN ETHICS - California State University has to say about intent.

The premiss is "It is always moral to fix unintended harms" 

and to contrast 

"It is always morally base to not fix unintended harms"

Question 

Is it ever moral to be a liar?

The answer has been shouted down through the ages and is NO! It is never moral to be a liar!

What does the  KANTIAN ETHICS - California State University. claim about why intent does not count when deciding the moral worth of a person.

 e) The wrong interpretation:  Consider the case described above about the lottery winner giving to charity.  Imagine that he gives to a charity and he intends to save hundreds of starving children in a remote village. The food arrives in the village but a group of rebels finds out that they have food, and they come to steal the food and end up killing all the children in the village and the adults too.  

The intended consequence of feeding starving children was good, and the actual consequences were bad.  Kant is not saying that we should look at the intended consequences in order to make a moral evaluation.  Kant is claiming that regardless of intended or actual consequences, moral worth is properly assessed by looking at the motivation of the action, which may be selfish even if the intended consequences are good. 

In the case of a liar the intent could be a good and moral intent, does this turn a liar into a moral person. No it does not. To me such thinking creates slavery and tyranny through slight of hand misdirection.

The rebel's actions are not the fault of the giver of charity. Thinking this way leads to the idea that the good is bating the bad. That the giver is a fisher man who bates the hook with a worm. Excusing the rebels from being responsible for their actions and discouraging the givers want to give. After all can the fish help taking the bate? Leading to the idea that the morally base couldn't be anything but immoral naturally so shouldn't be held accountable. This is morally base thinking.

All photo's are from Pixabay. I am not responsible if you think, how you think, what you think or what you do. You are! If you like my content consider up voting and following! Peace!

What do you think?