This paper has benefited from the complaints, exclamations, objections, and obscenities of posters to rec.arts.books and alt.postmodern.
Working Toward Good Results
I suspect that most Westerners at the end of the twentieth century would subscribe to the idea that when you do something, it's a good idea to consider what the results of your action will be. That is, if without mentioning "ethics" or "morality" you ask someone "Do you think it's a good idea, when you do something, to consider what the results of your action will be?" you will probably get an affirmative response. The question allows for our famous postmodern "apathy" in not specifying that you need ever be doing anything. The question is only about how you should behave if you do happen to do something. Of course, in ethics, doing nothing is as significant an action as any other (and "non-actions" is a concept I will criticize below), but here we are not talking about ethics. We are being intentionally vague. Some people may reply in the negative, saying that they prefer to be surprised by results, for example. And, given our vagueness, who could blame them? But I suspect that negative responses will be a distinct minority, and that only a very small minority of these will take the form of denying the relevance of results to the goodness of an action on the grounds that something else entirely determines that goodness.