There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

When I say that-" Sometimes actions are performed out of obligations, you don"t judge them based on consequences but on what is it, and how it appears to be ", does not mean that there won"t be any consequences but I"m here to argue whether consequences will be moral or not. Instead, I believe it is the actions which have to be decided to be moral or not because again we cannot always control consequences of an action. Let take an example of "stealing". Let us suppose a hypothetical situation where a thief steals money from a rich man. He claims that he is stealing so as to donate that amount of money to an orphanage. As a consequentialist, you might say, "it is OK" because it leads to happiness for many. Nevertheless, I won"t agree with that as Stealing itself is wrong no matter what the consequences are going to happen, no matter how many people are going to be benefited from that act, it is still wrong. Let"s take another example of "killing"- again let us assume a situation where an official is put in a situation where he is asked to shoot president of his country, otherwise the enemy will kill thousands of people in his hostage. As a consequentialist, I guess you might say kill the president as it will save many citizens, as this act will lead to happiness for many. Nevertheless, I won"t agree because for me killing is wrong, no matter what "wrong is wrong". Here again you will say if "that official" don"t kill then many are going to suffer which result into consequences which are lot of suffering, but then you forgot that consequences are not in your hands it is the actions which are in your hands, because what if that enemy changes his plan and kill thousands too. In that case, both your action and consequences became immoral. Form both these example I"m trying to prove a point that human actions are the one which are supposedly considered to be moral or not rather its consequences which can only be assumed. You are right that ""action will either way have an effect", because every action has a reaction but that reaction does not necessarily lead to something moral effects. Let us take example of beliefs" an Atheist do not believe in God, thus does not perform any religious activity. What moral consequences might he be experiencing or say people around him be experiencing by not performing any religious activity? Alternatively, say a priest who is performing all religious activity, what kind of moral consequences would he be experiencing? Unless you have religious beliefs of heaven and hell or say good and evil ( which again is questionable), these actions wouldn't matter. You"ll be doing it regardless of its consequences being moral. Now, to decide whether human actions always lead to moral consequences or not, I will say that consequences are mere assumptions and have extrinsic value which can differ from person to person. Morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality; therefore, no action is necessarily preferable to any other. According to Kant, the only thing of intrinsic value in morality is revenue for duty. I am assuming you must have heard about Queen"s guard standing like living statue at Birmingham palace. He stands at one position all day without moving like a decorative piece. His action of standing there does not result into any moral consequences as he does nothing but just stand, his feet might hurt, or say he might need to relax but he doesn't do it out of obligation regardless of consequences he performs his duty. Thus, there are actions which are performed regardless of consequences be moral or not.