So the three main branches of ethical philosophy are deontology, which is based on right intent, consequentialism, which is based on right outcome, and virtue ethics, which is based on right action.

All three agree that you should always try to do the right thing, but disagree as to how best to determine what that is. The deontologist says that consequences are unknowable so maintaining pure intent is the best strategy. The consequentialist says that intent doesn’t matter, only the outcome, because that’s what actually affects the world. The virue ethicist notes that both criticisms are true: intent is irrelevant and consequences are unknowable, so it’s best to focus on acting in a way that’s irreproachable.

To get back to your question, I think it’s obvious how the deontologist and the consequentislist would answer, but it’s up to me to answer for the side of virtue ethics. Say a man who kicks a dog out of malice, and then the dog’s owner rushes them to the vet, where they learn the dog had a condition, easily treatable but hard to detect, that would’ve killed it in two months. Bad intent, good outcome. Deontologist hates him, Consequentialist sees a mitzvah, but me? Kicking puppies is wrong. It doesn’t matter why you’re kicking them. You can’t reasonably expect it to save the dog’s life. The action itself is contemptible.