Generally speaking you shouldn't attempt to murder someone in cold blood just because you don't like the way they look. They have places that can help you if you feel the urge to, so long as you haven't done it yet.

Beyond that, there is no 'outcome' to reward other than hypothetics. Not a good example, in short.

Let's look at it another way. Say you planned to lure a known rapist to your house under the pretense of being a teen girl. Say some random dude whose car broke down on the way to volunteering at the old folk's home happens to knock at your door with the same haircut or something. What do you think should happen.

It was an example, I do not own any anvils.

I wasnt asking about hypotheticals I was just wondering poeples outlook on intention versus outcome

I'm wondering what text you read to take him to believe effect outweighs intention; not that I feel you're wrong, but I'm curious. J.L. Austin and Stanley Cavell say intention only comes into a situation when something goes wrong or unexpected. As in: "did you intend (mean) to do that?" Or, "did you intend to stop that robber?" The effect might "outweigh" that because the effect could be anticipated from the act--it is one of the expected outcomes, so why ask what they "intended"?

This is an interesting topic. Thanks for posting. After some thought, this dilemma seems to bring forth a large gray area.

One, even if someone's intentions are good--like stopping a robbery from happening or potentially preventing a supposed robber/criminal from harming others, this someone is still committing murder/harm to another in the process. This reminds me of something from Beyond Good and Evil. Where do we draw the line? The U.S. President at the end of World War II, Harry Truman, wanted to end World War II with Japan and dropped 2 atomic bombs--in my opinion one of the worst war crimes in history. Since he stopped the war and maybe had good intentions in wanting to stop the war vindicate him from the death of the estimated 129,000 to 226,000 lives taken?

Two, even if someone did prevent someone from doing something bad or harmful to others and they themselves acted Beyond Good and Evil, there will still be internal consequences inside this individual, in my humble opinion. Guilt, remorse, fear of judgement, fear of taking another's life, would most likely pervade this person's thoughts or it would, at least, be very hard to overcome these things (Crime and Punishment from Dostoevsky comes to mind here and his other works where characters act Beyond Good and Evil but still are bombarded with these internal struggles...)

To clarify, I love Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical works. However, I think many try to take what he wrote and apply it more than he intended. I view Nietzsche and other existential writers/philosophers as more thinkers trying to explain how things are instead of what we should do about 'this and that.' This doesn't mean we should apply some of his more clear and wonderful insights to our lives but for matters like this one, where it is too complex and it is essentially unclear which path an individual should take, I believe it would be imprudent to do so, even though he has provided us with a wonderful thought experiment.

For this particular dilemma, I think that some are capable of pulling acting within the bounds of 'the effect outweighs the intention,' however, there are boundaries. Harming others, murdering, beatings, etc. are all examples of where I would say the line/threshold of action would be--there are many more kinds of instances but those are the main ones to get my point across. Nevertheless, there are instances where this may be useful and good for individuals or circumstances that one may encounter. The first thing that comes to mind, in my opinion, is trying to 'help' a drug addict or alcoholic who doesn't want help. Some people would say a good friend would try and fight for this person to realize they need to stop and if you are lazy about this then you are a bad friend. I disagree due to Nietzsche's effect outweighs intention. Suppose your intentions are questionable in this scenario: you are lazy, do not want to deal with them anymore and you're tired of trying to help them even though they still need help. And this person ceases to listen to any of your advice/help and continues to use these substances on a daily basis even though they know they have a problem. Now we have the option to persist in our efforts or let that person come to terms on their own. Being someone with an alcohol problem myself, I believe that the person needs to 'want' to stop on their own for them to stop. People can try to help them but that person needs to want it inside and put it into action for it to work, even if it is incredibly hard. So, suppose we chose to not stop trying. Well, this may cause more anxiety, distress, and depression for the person. Why do I say this? Because it may make the person feel as if their life is 'wrong,' 'bad,' 'worthless,' etc. The constant badgering and reminded of how they have a problem and need help may have a cumulative, negative effect on the person and cause them to drink/take substances to escape these kinds of thoughts and emotions surrounding their situation. So, even if your intentions of stopping may be questionable like being lazy, fed up with a person, not wanting to deal with them anymore, the effect may be good because it gives that person time and reflection with themselves to come up with their own decision for their own life....(Disclaimer: I am not a mental health professional or addiction specialist, I simply used this example for philosophical/hypothetical purposes).

The point of the example was that the intention was horrid, but the outcome was a net good.

It is generally agreed that murdering someone simply because they look suspicious is a bad thing, that intending to murder someone based solely on appearance is immoral. The question I posed was that if the intention was immoral, but the outcome was good, was the action moral or immoral? Essentially, is deontology or consequentialism a better moral philosophy?

Intention only matters as so far as it manifests itself through effect. This example had a positive outcome, but it's likely the next anvil-victim will not be a thief. And the outcome will be bad. This action should still be punished because we know this person is a threat to society, and we're yet to even pose the question if stealing justifies execution(but that can be put aside)

In Nietzsche view the effect outweighs the intention. For example, you see a shady guy walking around and decide to drop an anvil on their head cartoon style, your intention was to hurt them but the effect was that no one robbed. (For this say they were a known robber that had been at large) Should you be punished for the intention or rewarded for the outcome? — CallMeDirac

Since when does robbery imply the forfeiture of consciousness? At what point do the material possessions stolen by the robber validate the proposition that his consciousness is now yours, someone not stolen from, to remove from the universe? And seeing as you did not own, or know of these stolen material possessions, and the impulse to remove one's consciousness from the universe, of which you have no justifiable, logically consistent, or universally symmetrical right or authority over to extinguish, is actually succesfully conducted, you are in fact a criminal against humanity itself as a destroyer of the human consciousness. You tell me if it sounds like Nietszche was on to something.

The only force justifiable to apply to the human mind, is the force requisite to induce a cessation of the violation of your own, or another's. No in-betweens, and no gray areas.

In Nietzsche view the effect outweighs the intention. For example, you see a shady guy walking around and decide to drop an anvil on their head cartoon style, your intention was to hurt them but the effect was that no one robbed. (For this say they were a known robber that had been at large) Should you be punished for the intention or rewarded for the outcome? — CallMeDirac

A lot of UK criminal offences require there to be intent. It needs to be punished as a deterrent.