Morality and Act

Kant's Moral Theory is based on his insight that there is a meaningful Moral difference between, for example, helping someone as a means to getting help in return, and doing so simply for its own sake. Hence, he concludes, Moral worth ultimately attaches to the intention behind an act. Mill, however, argues that unintentionally helping someone is preferable to intending to help someone, but failing in the attempt. Hence, he counters that the ultimate determinant of Moral value is the consequences of an act, the amount of happiness that an act effects. In contrast with both these prominent modern Moral Philosophers, Biblical Morality ultimately attaches worth to the type of act some event is, e. g. whether or not an acquisition is classified as 'stealing'. So, perhaps only Aristotle, among history's influential Ethicists, finds significance in the performance itself of an act--whether or not it is performed in Moderation. Furthermore, what, according to his Theory, constitutes 'Moderation' in every instance is relative to the capacities of the performer, e. g. what might be an act of Courage for one person might be one of Recklessness for someone less physically robust. In other words, a locus of Ethical significance for Aristotle is the performance an act itself, i. e. an episode in the life of a specific person. Such performances are 'Virtuous', according to Aristotle, but, as he later argues, they are examples of merely Practical Virtue, which he eventually subordinates to Theoretical Virtue, a type of Virtue which is not conditioned by the capacities of its bearer. So, the traditional Moral evaluation of an act is, despite the variety of approaches, in general a circumvention of the performance itself of an act.