The Pros And Cons Of Plain Consequentialism

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

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

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