The way I see it, ethics concerns the well-being of people. It is fundamentally a social dependency. It makes no sense to say that the planet Mars is "moral" or the staple gun next to me "immoral".

However, what we can say is that the planet Mars or the staple gun adjacent to myself are "valuable". If something is valuable, then we ought to strive or support it. Similarly, if something is unvaluable (a disvalue), we ought to eliminate and condemn it.

So it stands that the action taken to achieve a valuable state of affairs is moral, while the action taken to achieve an unvaluable state of affairs is immoral.

To do an action requires one to have intent.

The question is, does intention have anything to do with whether or not an action is moral?

Say person A shoots and kills person B. Say person A did it accidentally. Person A still had the intent to shoot the gun, but they had no intent to kill person B. Is person A still responsible for killing person B? Does it matter what person A "meant"? Person B is dead! The action of killing person B is still immoral, even if we can't assign blame or guilt on person A. Independent of the fact that person A did not intend the murder of person B, person A still murdered person B.

Say person C texts and drives and ends up hitting another person's, D's, car. Person C did not "intend" to hit person D's car. But they did intend to text and drive.

So is stands that an action is immoral or moral independent of our intentions, but our intentions assign guilt or praiseworthiness to our actions.