Actions versus Consequences

[Reforged]

No they don't, not all the time but if I rob a homeless guy I'm generally classed as a dickhead. If I give money to the homeless guy I'm generally classed as being generous. These are basic moral judgements in action that have been for a very, very long time and show no signs of changing any time soon. The effects of robbing mean I'm alittle bit richer but I risk losing respect, the effects of giving money are that I'm abit poorer but I might gain some respect. Results *do* emerge from actions, even unintentional ones. Just living, breathing in and out, eating, drinking, going to the toilet. None of these are moral actions or even notable actions but they do have results even if those results themselves aren't notable. Look up "The Butterfly Effect". The theory, not the film.
That isn't me stating any moral absolutes, thats me being factual. Now if your views differ radically from societies in this regard then please, don't spare any details.
I mean seriously? This is the part your debating? Did I miss a meeting?

No I think you were there, but I think you were pouring a coffee. What you set up as amoral absolute is not. Most charities will tell you not to give to the homeless, as the homeless person can often be in that situation because of an underlying psychiatric problem, alcoholism for an instance. By giving money you allow the person to stay within their comfort zone, as such they are not forced to address the underlying cause of their situation. If that is accepted then it would be better to take money from the homeless person so they get help quicker, assuming there is help to be had.
I think that a charity would say that, because they want the money you might give to the homeless person, which is not to say the charity is necessarily wrong. For every law there is a situation where it could be argued the wrong person was convicted. As such I chose to treat situations individually rather than trying to cram 'reality' into a template, which it does not properly fit.

Maybe, maybe not. Presumably the person in this instance is giving the money out of good will. The crux of my query was that if this effected the person attempting the act out of good will badly what psychological effect would it likely have and what factors would determine the effect. Instead of attempting to answer this you totally missed the point and decided to turn this into being about objective morality which is a tried and tested subject repeatedly and tiredly debated. For the purposes of this thread we are assuming that we are dealing with the average person who considers the most basic morality adopted by most modern cultures to be correct and thus believes murder, stealing, assault, etc etc to be immoral and generosity, patience, loyalty, etc etc to be admirable.
Why you would derail this subject instead of discussing objective morality on one of the other countless threads dedicated to such a thing is beyond me. Do you have something to add toward the subject actually raised or not? If so I would actually like to hear it.