Bad consequences from a good will?
The innermost theory of Kant's morality, is not the consequences but the motive behind the action, which determines if the action itself is one of moral worth. According to Kant, the only will that is good without qualification is a good will. Kant uses the term "good will" throughout his explanation of moral motive and to indicate that a will possesses a motive of righteous content, and does a dutiful act, because it is dutiful. To act out of a good will is to perform an action because it is right to do the action, and for no other reason. Kant identifies “good will” with practical reason in which all moral laws apply, at their most fundamental level, to all rational agents. Kant notes that many of the things we normally think of as good, such as happiness, courage, and intelligence, are all qualified goods, because their goodness depends upon their being possessed by someone with a good will. Likewise, someone who is courageous or intelligent, but who has an evil will, is all the more dangerous because of such a motive. A good will, on the other hand, remains good even when possessed by an unhappy person, or by a person lacking in talent and intelligences. This is distinguished from a merely pleasurable consequence, which exerts its influence on the “good will” by means of sensations and other subjective factors and perhaps holds factual for this or that individual, but not as a principle rationally applicable for everyone. He says that every other good characteristic of a person would actually be a bad thing if conjoined with a bad will (with the intention to do evil), although a good will is good even if it accomplishes nothing, and produces no virtuous consequences. This would mean that no good is possible unless it is brought about by a rightful intention.