Consequentialism v. Non-Consequentialism

Consequentialism is the judgement of actions based on their possible outcome. This means that prior to making a decision, you review the possibilities to decide whether or not the act is moral or immoral. For instance, lying to protect someone or lying to make someone feel better. Even though the act itself may be immoral, is it right based upon the outcome one is hoping to achieve? I believe humans are innately consequentialists as we constantly will lie out of the need to please and protect others.

Kant believes that if you're lying for the betterment of others, than it can be considered morally right. I agree with this statement. Generally, it is morally wrong to lie and there is almost no way of telling what consequences can arise from different decisions, however if one believes they weigh their decisions and the different outcomes and believes that their lie will be for the greater good, then their decision to lie becomes morally right.

With this said, if the outcome of a decision is bad, but the intention was still good, is the act still morally right? This is a tough principal, but I believe that if one has every good intention with their actions but the outcome isn't what they expected and isn't for the greater good, the act is still moral.