asaris

This is a question I've thought about a lot over the past 10 years -- it's probably the first real philosophical problem I ever grappled with, and I'm still grappling with it. But I think I may have learned something over the years.

If you believe an act to be good, you should do it, regardless of your motives. The act itself can still be good, even if you are not good for performing the act. Let's say I rescue a drowning child purely for the reward I expect -- I would not do it were the child's parents not rich. I don't think this is the sort of act you would (or should) praise me for, were you fully aware of your motives. But I should do it anyway, since the child benefits greatly from my actions.

Let me put it this way. The central goal in trying to live an ethical life is to become an ethical person -- this ought to be true whatever one's religion or lack thereof is, though some may describe it in other terms. A good person is the sort of person who is inclined to perform good deeds, for no other motive than the goodness of the deed. To clarify, other motives are allowed to be mixed in -- even the best of people, rescuing the child of a rich woman, is going to think "Boy, I hope I get a reward" -- but the central motive should be the goodness of the action. The action should be of the sort such that, were we to have no other motive other than the acts instrinsic goodness, we would still perform another act. (I think this is what Kant's getting at in the 2nd Critique, but that's another thread). But nobody starts off life virtuous. Even if you reject the Christian doctrine of original sin, you have to admit that the really good people, the people even you would be tempted to call 'saints' (or sages or gurus or buddhas -- whatever your ethical parlance might be) weren't born that way. They had to work at it.

So how do you work at being good? Well, you do the sort of things good people do. As you do the sort of things good people do, you will start to enjoy doing the sorts of things good people do; that is, they will become habits. And that's all virtue is; a good habit.

So I agree with Coach and Art that a good deed is a good deed, regardless of the motives. But I disagree that motive is irrelevant to the praiseworthiness or blameworthiness of an action. If you'll allow me an (admittedly extreme) example. Say I am trying to shoot and kill you, but in attempting this (I'm a bad shot. I missed the broadside of a barn once, I kid you not), I accidentally shoot another man standing behind you who was also trying to kill you. Are you going to thank me for saving your life? Probably not. And it's the praiseworthiness/blameworthiness of our actions that are the best guide (not an infallible guide) to the sorts of people we are.

edit:
[And, of course, while I was writing that thing Storm posts another question. So, really quick...

God does and does not care about our motives. What he wants is perfect people, and motive is important to being a perfect person, so to that extent, God cares about our motives. But on the other hand, none of us are perfect, and impure motives are a large part of this. But God in his grace forgives us anyway. So to that extent, God doesn't care about our motives.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche