The act of making a promise is binding. Therefore, breaking that promise is immoral. Not only would Kant keep that promise, he would follow through with it. Kant would indeed take the money and use it on the orchids, not helping the thousands of war refugees. In Kant’s view, making a promise is a categorical imperative. In other words, this promise denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself. With looking at the categorical imperative, the act of not keeping the promise is immoral and the end result is ultimately satisfied regardless of the outcome. Generally speaking, Kant’s views are representative of deontology, which states that what is moral is determined by the adherence of that action to a set of rules and not the consequences of the action itself. Therefore in our example, what is moral is keeping the promise made, not what the money is used for itself.

From a utilitarianism standpoint, you can say you keep the promise but not follow through with it by breaking it after the man dies. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions are right in proportion as they tend to produce happiness. The happiness of thousands of war refugees outweighs a single persons happiness. While promising to dedicate all the money and tend to the man’s orchids, a utilitarian might ultimately use the money to help the thousands of war refugees who have been impacted/affected by the war. If breaking a promise will lead to better consequences than keeping it, according to a utilitarian, you are morally obligated to break that promise. Ultimately, what makes an action moral is the result of that action and not the act itself. Virtue ethics focuses more on the characteristics of the person, then on the action or the consequence. What is moral is relative from situation to situation. In our