Any discussion about ethics, deciding what is right or wrong, moral immoral, is bound to incite a passionate debate among people from different cultures and circumstances. With many ethical principles proposed by philosophers over the history of man, the only point that is clear is that the debate of what is the correct ethical philosophy will continue for generations. In the following, I will be discussing ethics from a plain consequentialist point of view, which is the primary form of consequentialism on which all other versions of consequentialism are based.
Plain Consequentialism According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, William Haines explains that plain consequentialism is an ethical theory that a morally right decision is
…show more content…
Utilitarianism is also a form of consequentialism. The one guideline in developing these variable theories is that the primary or general idea of morality is based on desirable consequences. (Haines, n.d.)
James Fieser goes into more specific detail, explaining that there are three primary subdivisions of consequentialism: ethical egoism, ethical altruism and utilitarianism. Each of these determine the morally correct action dependent on the specific benefactor of the end result consequences. Ethical egoism is concerned with the consequence benefitting the person making the decision. Ethical altruism is concerned with the consequences benefitting everyone except the person making the decision. Finally, utilitarianism focuses on consequences that benefit everyone involved. (Fieser, n.d)
Personal Ethical Dilemma I have been working in healthcare for over 10 years, and have had my share of ethical decisions to make. In the healthcare world, specifically in the United States, there has been a major shift in policy towards patient privacy, and there are strict guidelines in healthcare about what information is accessible, when it is allowably accessible, and who
…show more content…
I also felt that this was morally the correct thing to do, and would benefit me by providing me the assurance that I did everything I could for the patient and their family, as well as maintaining my loyalty to a friend. Under normal circumstances, I would not violate organizational policy regarding the handling of patient complaints or accessing patient data without proper authority, but in this particular case, I changed my moral view based on the situation, determining that the risk of not following policy was outweighed by the potential consequences to the patient’s health if nothing was done. My actions could arguably be described as taking on a utilitarian philosophy, but since there was a potential consequence of disciplinary action I could have faced as a result of my decisions, there was a chance that the decision would not have benefitted me in the end since it could have impacted my career negatively.
In conclusion, choosing an ethical philosophy can be difficult because different situations may warrant different action, which is why I tend to agree with the plain consequentialist point of view. With the complexity of the modern world, and the absence of a clearly specific moral right or wrong, I believe that each ethical challenge
In the above paper, I have explored Williams’s criticism of negative responsibility and consequentialism’s attack on integrity. I then moved on to Railton’s solution of sophisticated consequentialism as a reconciliation of consequentialism and integrity; I then proposed an objection to Railton on the grounds that embracing sophisticated consequentialism is a move away from consequentialism. Finally, I considered Railton’s probable response to that objection. The decision is now left to the reader as to the fruitfulness of my endeavor.
asks “What are the costs?” and “What are the benefits?”. According to rule consequentialism, rules are selected entirely based on the goodness of their consequences and proceeds to claim that these rules govern what kind of acts are morally wrong. Basically, the rightness or wrongness of an action is contingent on whether it is obligatory or prohibited by an ideal set of rules. An ideal set of...
Consequentialism is a term used by the philosophers to simplify what is right and what is wrong. Consequentialist ethical theory suggests that right and wrong are the consequences of our actions. It is only the consequences that determine whether our actions are right or wrong. Standard consequentialism is a form of consequentialism that is discussed the most. It states that “the morally right action for an agent to perform is the one that has the best consequences or that results in the most good.” It means that an action is morally correct if it has little to no negative consequences, or the one that has the most positive results.
Consequentialism is ordinarily distinct from deontology, as deontology offers rightness or wrongness of an act, rather than the outcome of the action. In this essay we are going to explore the differences of consequentialism and deontology and apply them to the quandary that Bernard Williams and J.J.C Smart put forward in their original analogy of “Jim and the Indians” in their book , Utilitarianism: for and against (J.J.C Smart & Bernard Williams, 1973, p.78-79.).
The utilitarian faces many problems because he loses any ability to live a personal life. By this is meant that in making decisions the utilitarian must consider the steps which lead to the highest level of goodness in society. The utilitarian reaches for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two main aspects dominate the light of utilitarian beliefs. The consequentialist principle explains that in determining the rightness or wrongness of an act one must examine the results that will follow. The utility principle is that you can only deem something to be good if it in itself will bring upon a specific desired state, such as happiness or fulfillment. There are two types of utilitarians: Act utilitarians and Rule utilitarians. An act utilitarian believes that a person must think things through before making a decision. The only exception to this idea applies with rules of thumb; decisions that need to be made spontaneously. The right act is the one that results in the most utility. Rule utilitarians believe that an act is only deemed appropriate if it fits in line with the outline of valid rules within a system of rules that target the most favorable outcome.
When you first enter the world, it’s easy for one to develop black and white vision. I’m not talking about actual eyesight. By black and white vision, I mean that people have a simple view of the world where one action is completely right and one action is completely wrong. I was one of those people during my early years. I thought I had a clear picture of who I was and what right from wrong was. My change in views is attributed to the first time I experienced an identity crisis and the ideas of altruism and consequentialism that followed.
A common objection to consequentialism, that agents are burdened with duties to help others at the expense of their own happiness, was not even addressed. This in itself seems to be one form of absolutism that riddles consequentialism in general. Nielsen made it clear that one should not be absolute about insisting on weighing consequences when they are barely known, but would he reject this notion as well? It is not clear that this absolutism, of always valuing the good of others over the agent’s own self, is separable from the concept of consequentialism; so it is not clear that consequentialism can escape absolutism as Nielsen concluded in the second argument recounted here.
Consequentialism is an ethical perspective that primarily focuses upon the consequences resulting from an action and aims to eliminate the negative consequences. Within this framework there are three sub-categories: Egoism, Altruism and Utilitarianism.
Consequentialism sets out to prove that one’s actions are morally right just because they produce the greatest amount of possibly goodness in the world. Consequentialism has two forms; one being act-utilitarianism, and the second one being rule-utilitarianism. In this paper I will explain the difference between the two forms, and will also apply these two forms to the same given scenario, and describe how the act-utilitarian will select the male patient, while the rule-utilitarian will select the female patient.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
I also believe that since consequentialism is not being used as a decision procedure, it is not very helpful in allowing us to make decisions. Railton did briefly discuss an argument against this belief in which he provides the question, “Which modes of decision making should be employed and when.” This question to me is just as vague of guidance as objective consequentialism is. Also, you must know all the types of decision making and know when they are best used. Through Railton’s objective consequentialism, you would learn these things through experience, but that could take years, which could mean years of undesired and unwanted consequences for years before truly figuring it
Act-consequentialism is a moral theory that maintains what is right is whatever brings about the best consequences impartially considering. The main and most renowned form of act-consequentialism is act utilitarianism which advocates agents choosing the moral path that creates the greatest good for the greatest number, this being the most widely known form of act-consequentialism is the moral theory that I shall be concentrating on though out my discussion. Impartiality is the notion that everybody should count for one and nobody more than one, which is often considered to be a “double-edged sword” (Jollimore, 2017) meaning there is debate as to whether impartiality is a strength or weakness of the theory. Throughout my essay I attempt to point out an important misunderstanding made by theories that uphold impartiality as a weakness of act-consequentialism and how this could lead to the view that impartiality is in fact a strength of both act utilitarianism and act consequentialism.
All consequences must be taken into consideration. This includes the bad consequences and the good consequences. Utilitarianism relies upon the theory of intrinsic value when evaluating the consequences of actions. Intrinsic value is something that is held to be good in itself.
Consequentialism and non-consequentialism are both action based ethical frameworks that people can use to make ethical judgments. Consequentialism is based on examining the consequences of one’s actions as opposed to non-consequentialism which is focused on whether the act is right or wrong regardless of the outcome (Burgh, Field & Freakley, 2006). The three sub-categories of consequentialism are altruism, utilitarianism and egoism.
Utilitarianism can be described as an ethical theory that states if the consequences of an action