Ethical Dimensions of the Existence of Personality

The Problem of Moral Choice: The Structure of Action

The problem of choice is where ethics, as the theory of moral activity, truly begins. A human action attains a moral dimension only when it is based on a decision made within the context of the opposition between Good and Evil. From a moral perspective, the evaluation of an action becomes possible and valid only when the agent could have chosen not to perform it, opting for an alternative course of behavior. For this reason, compelled good is not morally assessed, and forced evil is often forgiven.

As previously mentioned, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, at the turn of the 18th to 19th century, was the first to systematically analyze morality. Kant derived morality from the autonomy of the will, which is determined not by external factors—whether natural necessity or even divine will—but by the law the will itself imposes upon itself, recognizing it as the highest and sole guiding principle. This law, Kant termed the "categorical (unconditional) imperative." Thus, the domain of moral inquiry begins where a person must choose between various intentions, values, behaviors, and goals. The freedom of the will, as the ability of individuals to freely determine the course of their practical lives, stands as the most essential form of freedom. It is no coincidence that traditional understandings of choice, in all its forms—whether in politics or morality—are first and foremost reduced to the problem of self-determination.

Moral activity is a crucial component of morality, manifesting in actions. An act, or a series of acts, that defines a person’s behavior reveals their true moral character. One can be a decent and honest individual, aligning one’s conduct with moral standards, yet still lack the capacity for a genuinely moral action. The latter becomes possible only in situations where responsible action and choice, entailing a struggle of motives and the uncertain grounding of values in our existence, are present. Therefore, an act can be defined as the intentional assertion of certain moral values in circumstances where those values are questioned or denied. The hallmark of a moral act is its adherence to generally accepted moral norms and values, which, in specific situations, cease to be abstract principles of the moral sphere, requiring the actor to exert their full being, acting at their own risk without expectation of universal approval for their moral motivations.

An act consists of three components:

• Motive: the morally conscious impetus to perform an action, or the motivation, which refers to the set of motives indicating the prioritization of certain values in the moral choice of the individual carrying out the act.
• Result: the material or spiritual outcomes of the act, which hold particular significance.
• Evaluation: the assessment by others of both the act itself, its results, and the underlying motive. The act is evaluated in relation to its social significance: its meaning for a particular person, group, or society.

Since the ultimate outcomes of human actions often diverge from the initial motives, an ethical problem arises: how should we evaluate human actions—by their motives or by the consequences they produce? In ethical theory, the so-called theory of moral goodness has long emphasized the primacy of motives in assessing human actions. Notable proponents include Martin Luther (1483—1546), Immanuel Kant (1724—1804), and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905—1980). The theory of moral goodness highlights the importance of moral control over a person’s internal state in its most immediate expressions, where the purity of moral intentions serves as the main criterion for evaluating actions. For example, Kant argued that in fulfilling moral duty, the primary concern is not the specific content and outcomes of the action, but rather the person’s intentions, which must stem from a sense of disinterested respect for duty and an unconditional readiness to obey it. In the theory of moral goodness, this unconditionality gains particular urgency, as it directly addresses the soul and the deepest experiences of the individual.

A contrasting perspective in ethical theory is known as ethical consequentialism (from the Latin consequentia—consequences), which prioritizes the results or consequences of an action in determining its moral significance. This view is represented by ethical approaches such as hedonism and utilitarianism. In this sense, all materialist concepts of morality can be described as consequentialist, as they focus primarily on the fulfillment of human needs, the performance of certain social functions, and the realization of the meaning of personal existence. Compared to the theory of moral goodness, consequentialist ethics is more moderate and inclined to acknowledge human flaws and weaknesses—such as the variability of temperament, weakness of will, or the pressures of external circumstances. Consequently, it requires from individuals not only good intentions or “inner piety” (as Luther put it), but also the clear alignment of intentions with outcomes and the fulfillment of what was begun. This demands endurance, prudence, persistence, and detachment in achieving one’s goals. Friedrich Nietzsche even referred to those who embrace this ethical stance as “people of long will.”

It is important to note that the evident positive and negative aspects of both approaches to the relationship between motive and result are closely intertwined and even stem from one another. However, any attempt to eliminate these negatives by creating a third viewpoint is doomed to fail in practice and through the experience of communication. In different situations, we resort either to the first or the second approach. We often evaluate a person by their motives and intentions, knowing that these alone are not ethically perfect unless they are realized in concrete actions and match the objective outcome. Only then can intentions and motives gain real significance. Conversely, the moral weight of a positive outcome increases greatly when it is not achieved impulsively, but as the result of a well-thought-out plan aimed at the consistent and tangible affirmation of good.