Question

gandhiji says "whether an act is moral or not depends upon the intention of the doer " how does he explain this criterion? ​

Answer 1

Answer:

Hope it helped you please mark as brainlist

Explanation:

It means that it is not enough for a moral act to have been done with a good intention, but it should have been done without compulsion. ... That action is moral which is done not only for the sake of doing good.

Answer 2

When Gandhiji was asked When can he say that a particular action is moral? In addressing this topic, Gandhiji stated that it is not the intention to contrast moral with immoral actions but to take into account the many of our daily acts that are not conventionally appropriate and considered to be moral. Some of our work is perhaps non-political, not inherently moral.

Explanation:

• Our own action must be a rational act; our own will must be the root. There is no moral substance of our act when we behave mechanically. If we believe that it is right to behave like a machine and do that, this will be moral
• Ghandhiji's word implies that it is not sufficient for us to have an act in itself; it ought to have been done with moral intentions or else the motive of the doer depends on it. Two people could have done the same thing exactly; but one's act could have been moral and the opposite. Take, for example, a man who feeds the poor out of sympathy and a man who does the same but for the sake of gaining popularity or with such a egoist end.
• While the action is the same, one act is moral and the other non-moral. Here the reader will note the distinction between non-moral and immoral terms. We can not always see positive outcomes as a consequence of a virtuous act. What we need to see is that the deeds are good, and are performed with a positive intent when talking about morality. It is not in our influence that an event results. The fruit donor is Christ alone.