Consequentialism is an ethical theory that evaluates the consequences of a person’s action to determine if their actions are right or wrong (Slote 34). According to the theory, a morally right act is one that has more good outcomes than bad ones. In this ethical theory, the end justifies the means; hence, it argues that people should first determine the good and bad consequences of actions before they do them. After determining the total outcomes, it is important to investigate whether the total good consequences are more. If the good ones outweigh the bad ones, then that action is morally right, but if it is the reverse, then the action is morally wrong. Whether to kill one person to save a hundred worthwhile lives is all about looking at the consequences. This can be looked at in three ways, which include the utilitarian, ethical-egoist, and the egoist-altruism view. Ethical egoism theory states that the correct act in any given situation is that which maximizes the self-interest of a person. It is …show more content…
In this theory, therefore, what will make a consequence better is if it is good for the agent. The actor in this theory is perceived to carry out only those actions that will bring him the greatest consequences, since the person does not care for the welfare of others. In this maximizing act egoism theory, people have the altruism view in which the actor evaluates whether a consequence is good or bad depending on the influence it has on the people special to him such as family members, colleagues, and friends. The other form of agent-relativity is the one that looks at the relationship between an agent and their actions. The opposite of agent relativity is agent neutrality, which is similar to all individuals. In many cases, consequences are evaluated in terms of agent neutrality and not agent relativity (Hooker
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.
In conclusion we can say that consequentialism is flawed in the fact that the borders of a wrongdoing, to bring about a better good, are limitless. We can conclude that evil wrong doing can be construed as bringing about a better happiness for what the evil doer contrives to be for the better good of the people. For the most part we have seen that deontology’s view of good will in the individuals act can lead to moral justification. The captain and his men must make this moral decision to kill or not, if they do kill the Indians, their actions must be left to higher authority to deal with.
Consequentialism prohibit arbitrary moral prohibitions. If I want to condemn something as morally wrong so I have to show hos someone's life is made worse off. For consequentialism for example we cannot define homosexuality morally wrong if we cannot find bad consequences that arise from it.
Consequentialism is a punishment theory that provides moral justification for punishment by taking into account future consequences and by weighing the intrinsic value of a punishment against other available alternatives. The primary rationale for punishment is to bring the most good over harm, to deter or prevent crimes from occurring in the first place and to prevent future crimes from being committed. Utilitarianism would even consider punishing the innocent or pass a more severe sentence for a lesser crime if it could be determined that benefits to society outweighed the consequences of such punishment (Howard). For example, if it were believed that better crime deterrence or prevention could be achieved, a consequentialist would consider executing a murderer versus handing down a life sentence. Retributivism is a punishment theory that looks back at the specific nature of a crime and determines how much the victim suffered, in order to morally justify the severity of punishment. The moral emphasis is on righting a wrong and seeking justice by ensuring that criminals get what the...
Ethical Egoism A rear assumption is that the needs and happiness of other people will always affect our moral ethics. If we accept this assumption, we think that our moral ethics balance our self-interest against that of others. It is true, that “What is morally right or wrong depends not only on how it makes us feel, but also how it affects others”. The idea that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively to do in his lifetime for others is known as Ethical Egoism.
• Once more, the ordinary science’ proves itself as the master of classification, inventing and defining the various categories of Egoism. Per example, psychological egoism, which defines doctrine that an individual is always motivated by self-interest, then rational egoism which unquestionably advocates acting in self-interest. Ethical egoism as diametrically opposite of ethical altruism which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if sacrifices own interest. Also, ethical egoism differs from both rational and psychological egoism in ‘defending’ doctrine which considers all actions with contributive beneficial effects for an acting individual
Kai Nielsen defended consequentialism and showed how it can still agree with commonsense, deontological convictions in his article “Traditional Morality and Utilitarianism.” His article focused on closing the gulf between consequentialism and deontology by showing how closely they can agree, and he further evaluated the systems and found that consequentialism as he sees it should be practiced is morally superior to traditional deontology. First, this essay will explain his argument that consequentialism squares with the commonsense convictions of deontology, and second, it will show how Nielsen arrived at the conclusion that consequentialism is a good moral system while deontology is faulty.
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.
On considering the consequentialist theory we need to evaluate the consequences of the situation and action is needed to be taken which seems to be apt. To some extent we Conseqentialist theory works to argue but Deontologist theory works even more better in this situation
This paper shows that altruism is a very complex issue and much more information could be introduced, following this would allow a greater look at the complexity of other views such as the religious or the philosophical side. Garrett Hardin’s ‘lifeboat ethics’ is a perfect example and proof of this paper, showing that we would rather let others gets killed instead of trying to help a
Psychological egoism, a descriptive claim about human nature, states that humans by nature are motivated only by self-interest. To act in one's self-interest is to act mainly for one's own good and loving what is one's own (i.e. ego, body, family, house, belongings in general). It means to give one's own interests higher priority then others'. "It (psychological egoism) claims that we cannot do other than act from self-interest motivation, so that altruism-the theory that we can and should sometimes act in favor of others' interests-is simply invalid because it's impossible" (Pojman 85). According to psychological egoists, any act no matter how altruistic it might seem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agent (i.e., desire for reward, avoidance of guilt, personal happiness).
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.
Utilitarianism can be described as an ethical theory that states if the consequences of an action