Intent vs. Action

[Gabu]

While the results of one's actions are important in general (the old cliché of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind), they most certainly do not, in my mind, have anything to do with morality.  Being incompetent or overenthusiastic does not mean you're immoral.

[Gabu]

I'd say actions have more of a role than intent although intent DOES play somewhat of a role.

It's more immoral to accidentally kill someone than to actually want to kill someone?

[Gabu]

I'd say the ends are more important than the means.  Doing good in a stupid way that ends up causing harm to others is often just as bad as being mean on purpose and causing harm to others.

For me, the reason why I feel that intent is more important is because if someone tries to do good and screws up, then it's unlikely that that will happen again unless the person is a terminal screwup who is incapable of learning from his mistakes.  On the flipside, however, if something bad happens because the person intended to cause that outcome, it's very likely that it will happen again unless the person is forcibly stopped.

[Gabu]

Do you think most "bad things" in life are done by "bad people" who know full well what they are doing is bad?

You misunderstand me.  It's not a matter of someone knowing that what he's doing is bad; it's a matter of having the bad outcome be intentional, regardless of what the person himself thinks about it.  It's irrelevant what a serial killer thinks about his actions; what is relevant is the fact that all of the deaths he caused were purposeful, and that they are likely to continue unless he is stopped.  On the other hand, if someone causes a death due to negligence, that person is likely to be extremely distraught by the outcome and is unlikely to let it happen again.  Given that what's in the past is what it is and is unchangeable, what really matters once something bad happens is the prevention of any recurrence in the future, if possible.