system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
How can the morality of an action be seperated from its consequences?

In a philosophy video I saw this quote from Kant (I appologise in advance if this is dumb question I'm new to philosophy):

>Because morality is not empirical, whether an act is moral or not cannot be determined by it's consequences -- rather it must be determined by the nature of the act itself.

If this is true, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that shooting someone could be a morally neutral action? If pulling a trigger is the action, wouldn't the action itself be judged in Kant's assertion regardless of whether or not the consequence is someone being shot?
gpt
Kant argued that morality of our action depends on our intentions. If our will is good then our action is good, despite of all possible consequences. This seems reasonable if you remember that our actions don't always brings results that we expect. For example, you are a royal healer who healed a daughter of a peasant out of goodness of your heart in a plagued village. Then to your shock you found that the villagers killed the girl because they suspected her to be the evil witch who caused the plague. And they suspected her because her health suddenly improved. Her parents told them about a kind royal healer, but they didn't believe. Would be her death your fault?