Final answer:
The statement 'An act was moral if its morals or intentions were good, regardless of the outcome' reflects Kantian ethics and thus could be considered True within that framework, while it would be considered False from a Utilitarian perspective that prioritizes outcomes over intentions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question whether An act was moral if its morals or intentions were good, regardless of the outcome presents a dichotomy that is debated among philosophers. According to Utilitarianism, this statement would be False because it asserts that only the consequences of an action determine its moral value. Conversely, Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics would suggest the statement is True, as Kant emphasized that the morality of an act depends on whether its maxim can be universalized, without considering the consequences.
Kant believed that morality is determined by rationality and the goodwill behind actions. The intentions and whether the action aligns with duty and can be made into a universal law is what makes an act moral. Whereas, Utilitarians would argue that the outcomes and the happiness or utility that actions produce are what determine their moral worth, suggesting that good intentions are not sufficient if they result in harmful consequences.