Pattern comments on Dumb Dichotomies in Ethics, Part 1: Intentions vs Consequences

[Pattern]

To lay my cards on the table, I’m basically a utilitarian. I think we should maximize happiness and minimize suffering, and frankly am shocked that anyone takes Kant seriously.

Kant’s categorical imperative is weird, and seems distantly related to some of the reasoning you employ:

And, perhaps, some of these folks grow up to be bioethicists who advocate against COVID vaccine challenge trials, despite their enormous positive expected utility.

Overall I’d say...

Goals*, Knowledge → Intentions*/​Plans → Actions

*I’m using “goals” here instead of the OP’s “intentions” to refer to the desire for puppies to not suffer prior to seeing the puppy suffering.

Why do consequences matter? Because our models don’t always work. What do we do about it? Fix our models, probably.

In this framework, consequences ‘should’ ‘backpropagate’ back into intentions or ethics. If it doesn’t, then maybe something isn’t working right.