Honorable intentions versus praiseworthy accomplishments: The impact of motives and outcomes on the moral self

Abstract

A centuries-old philosophical issue—Do honorable intentions make an action praiseworthy or is the best action one that generates the greatest good for the greatest number?—was examined by telling subjects who were working to earn money for themselves or a charity that they succeeded or failed at the task. Confirming predictions derived from personal moral philosophy theory, idealistic individuals who stress the importance of fundamental moral principles (absolutists) felt the most positive about their own morality when they were working for a charity, irrespective of the consequences of their actions. Principled individuals who were not idealistic (exceptionists), however, reported feeling distressed when laboring for a charity rather than themselves and the most morally virtuous when they performed badly when working for personal gain. Relativistic subjects (situationists and subjectivists) did not rate themselves as positively when working for a charity. These findings indicate that, at the psychological level, individuals consider both intentions and consequences when evaluating their own moral successes and failures, but they differ in the weight that they assign to these two factors.