Does intention matter when considering immorality?

I've been thinking about immorality for a short while now and decided to make a topic about it (Edit: Just realised that, when you read the title, this isn't that suprising).

I was thinking that if you do something that you truly believe is the most moral thing to do, regardless of how sick it actually is, that action can't be deemed immoral. And then I realised how stupid that was, because that would mean believing that if some misguided person kills someone and feels totally moral about it, that wouldn't be immoral of him. So obviously the subjective interpretation of morality is flawed, and immorality needs to be based on the actual actions that occur. And then I realised how sick that was, because that would mean that if someone insane killed someone because of his insanity he would be considered immoral.

So yes, I'm in a bit of a dilemma. Any thoughts?

You can always plead insane.

If I had a nickle...

I don't remember anyone ever saying that if someone didn't intend to kill that it isn't immoral. more than likely, they did something immoral that caused that death - like drunk driving

the question of intent is important though on a human personal level. with this little thing we call forgiveness. you can say, its immoral to refuse forgiveness for someone who didn't intend to cause harm

I for one, would not like to see a drunk driver gone wrong put to death because he killed someone while behind the wheel. Intention is important in this case.

Accidents, happen. We can't treat them on the same level as intentional harm. I'm not saying that justifies the accident. But neither do the ends justify the means.

The way I justify morality is by following this chain of thought:

Every intention we hold, or have ever held makes up our personality. Over time, the way we think will become a habit. If I am constantly angry, it will become more and more easier for me to react with anger to stressful situations. If I constantly think bad thoughts toward others, it will become more and more easy to do so - my brain will associate more and more things in this way. And also, if I hold good intentions toward people, this will also condition my future habits.

What I want is to be happy, content. And not in a fleeting way, but in a way that lasts. Happiness is a skill, it can be trained like any other. And I'm sure every being wants to be happy. True happiness comes from a peace of mind, and unlimited love toward others. When one lives constantly in that state of mind, then he is truly happy. (Happiness is a habit, it can be thought of like a kind of like the sum of all our past intentions.)

Putting these things together, I can categorize each intention either as "positive" in that it brings me nearer to happiness or "negative" in that it takes me back. An intention to kill is definitely negative, as it is the opposite of loving someone, opposite of forgiving and quite a strong manifestation of hate. And a murder would most definitely build up a huge emotional burden to bear, one which would set me back a huge way from peace of mind. Smiling at stranger on the street, however would be positive, as that is a manifestation of acceptance, of love, and will maybe even make the other person feel better.

This is my personal compass, the goal toward enlightenment is what gives me morality. Subjectively, it is infallible.

It can not as easily be applied objectively, however. I think the weakest point of my argument is that it rests entirely of the notion of happiness that I have described - a state of infinite calm and love. This notion I have no doubt toward of being universal, but most people (including myself when I do not think about it :)) try to find happiness in pleasure. Pleasure comes from the outside world, it is sex, it is money, it is power. Therefore the system rests on the correct identification of happiness - which is easy enough when some thought is put into it, but made more difficult by our frantic way of life and our media, which constantly shouts "you need this to be happy!" or "you need to look like this before you can be happy!".

Also, my argument comes down if one believes that it is possible for someone to have negative intentions but still have peace of mind, and happiness. As in the case of a manic killer, who feels no pain for the people he kills. I, personally, do not believe that these kind of people can be happy. All I see in a manic killer is a person who is so utterly lost that they have even denied their most integral part of themselves, their conscience.

So this is what I see as morality: intentions that bring you closed to happiness are moral. These intentions cannot be damaging toward others by the definiton of happiness, which is a state of platonic love (and peace of mind).

Intentions that bring you further from happiness, by creating anxiety, fear, hate or ignorance are immoral. These include obsessions, desires, negative feelings toward others.

EDIT: to give a direct answer to your question: intention = morality