I tend to agree with what everyone has been saying about motive and consequence. I think a person's motives reflect what kind of a person they are ethically. It's what drives a person that shows who they really are.
I've been wondering, however, where Mill's idea that the end justifies the means fits into this. I usually agree with Mill's idea of the greatest good for the greatest number, but according to his theories, consequence is everything. Would Mill say that a person who has no moral character can do an ethical act simply because the consequence helped the greatest number of people?
I just wanted to throw that question out. I think that as long as we're doing everything we can to be ethical people and to take personal responsibility, that is what really matters. Good consequences usually follow that type of motive, but when they don't, it still is the motive that really matters.