<p>Of course his actions supersede his motives. He saved the life of another and I’d never delve into why someone would choose to make such a radical, yet courageous decision if it wasn’t that this is all hypothetical. </p>
<p>I do believe that intentions affect morality. Let’s say a man decides to donate 10 million dollars to cancer research. If his intentions are so his name will appear on every American Cancer Association packet and he will create a “charitable” reputation for himself, once he has achieved his goal, there is no need to continue. However, the recognition he will inevitably receive may spur him to continue giving such charitable donations, while simultaneously feeding his selfish and egotistical self and breeding a power hungry man.
If his intentions are to help develop life-saving surgical techniques, regardless of the recognition he receives, he will continue with the charity to whatever degree he can. The giving that ensues, due to human nature, will make him a better man and perpetuate his generosity. </p>
<p>Basically, if you cultivate a person who gives for the sake of giving, they will continue giving because they’re acting altruistically and there is no reason to stop. The goal is not the end, the goal is the means itself, so to speak. Someone who gives selfishly will not continue to give once he has reached his purpose and so for him, the end IS the goal. Two very different people, with two very different results.</p>