Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Criticisms of consequentialism
Criticisms of consequentialism
Criticisms of the hedonistic utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Criticisms of consequentialism
Criticisms of consequentialism
Criticisms of the hedonistic utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Under a consequential perspective, Commissioner Walker opines that as an official of the city he is ethically obligated to make decisions that promote good consequences for the greatest number. As he begins to deliberate on the case he starts to reflect on the two schools of thought. He first starts to ponder the meaning of consequentialism. He knows that consequentialism is the view that morality produces the right kinds of overall consequences.
As we know consequentialism is the focus of an action that does more intrinsically good than bad, one kind of consequentialist theory is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an action that produces consequences that are more good over bad for everyone involved. In order to produce an action that is the best one a utilitarianist would consider both long and short term effects. Two sub categories of utilitarianism include act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. act utilitarianism bases an action on the overall well being produced by an individual.
Ethical theories are ways of telling right from wrong and include guidelines of how to live and act in an ethical way. For example when faced with a difficult situation in your life, you can use ethical theories to assist you in making the right decision. One key theory is consequentialism, which says that an individual’s correct moral response is related to the outcome/ consequence of the act and not its intentions/ motives. Early writers on this theory were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, a modern writer is Peter Singer. For example Brenda Grey has asked for the asthma specialist to visit her weekly, and to decide if this is necessary the professionals involved have to look at how it would affect her wellbeing.
Also, as a human, it is our natural wish not to get curse by our predecessors, but rather get blessed. She furthered distinguished consequentialists' view and religious view. Consequentialists believe that action's goodness is depend on its effects. If action can increase the happiness for more people than it is considered good action. However, most of religious challenge this saying it is upon god to decide whether an action is wrong or right.
One of the theories I have noticed during the discussion was Consequential ethics theory. According to Pozgar (2013) "Consequential ethical theory revolves around the premise that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the consequences or effects of an action" (p. 7). During the discussion, two goals were clearly in conflict- the goal to repopulate the earth and the goal to determine who should get the chance to stay at the station to return to the earth. Pozgar (2013) also states " The goal of consequentiality is to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number" (p. 7). In healthcare ethics committee, this can have its own negative consequences as it undermines individual's right to autonomy.
Williams has an issue with the need to look at actions’ consequences to find any value in them. He believes that some actions have innate value regardless of their consequences. He compares the consequentialist’s position to that of a traveler who focuses only on the destination he is seeking to arrive at. Williams states that travelers don’t travel to arrive somewhere, they travel because they find value in the journey itself. There is something in this idea that can be applied to morality.
Utilitarianism is one of the best-known theory under the consequentialism, and its idea is the Greatest Happiness Principle(GHP). According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Utilitarian believe that the purpose of morality is to
When a person is going to make a moral decision based on consequentialism, he or she first look at the good and bad possible consequences of the action, then determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad.
However, I can also think of circumstances where I would behave more like a consequentialist. The video presentation was concerning consequentialist moral reasoning and categorical moral reasoning. Consequentialist moral reasoning deals with the consequences of the actions and doesn’t place a lot of emphasis on the actions themselves.
Consequentialist believe that morality is about producing the right overall consequences, and that the action brings about either happiness, freedom or survival of species. Utilitarianism is an example of consequentialism that maximizes utility (happiness). The difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism is that a utilitarian overlooks justice, as long as an utilitarian can maximize pleasure they would do whatever it takes. Consequentialist enjoy maximizing pleasure like a utilitarian, but they also take into account autonomy and justice. A consequentialist believes that determining good by measuring the outcome, if the good for all in the act is greater than the bad for all in the act, it is deemed morally good.
When discussing whether consequentialism and deontology are tenable, I have reason to believe that they can both be justified and implemented in certain situations in order to achieve the best outcome: whether this be happiness, utility, or moral judgment. For a consequentialist, ‘happiness is conceived of as the ultimate good’ (Hospers, 1997) however the language of morality is perceived as deontological. Regardless of the situation there is always an ethical axiom which is ‘killing innocent people is wrong’ (Markham, 2007). With both of these views exercised every day, we are faced with many possibilities, leading to problems and opportunities. Nevertheless, if we didn’t have both views, the world would be a very different place as we know it to be now and people would not be faced with the same opportunities.
The general explanation for Consequentialism is “the view that morality is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences” (Chase, 2016). Mozi’s social ethics is consequentialist as he suggested the basic standard to judge whether a superior fulfill righteousness is whether he can bring benefits to people (Zhang, 2016) and he suggested people should practice all-embracing love so as to reach harmonious social performance. Likewise, Confucius’s social ethics is as consequentialist as is Mozi’s as he pursued the best consequences to the society. For instance, Confucius mentioned if people was led by laws and bound by punishments, although they would not commit crime, they would not shame; when people was led by morality and bound
Consequential Ethical theory It is a part of normative ethical theories and it means that the consequence of ones behavior is an ultimate mean for anyone to judge the rightness or wrongness of that behavior. So, from the perspective of a consequentialist an ethically right act is the one that will inherit good outcome or consequence. It usually explains the saying “the end justifies the means” which means that in order to achieve a goal, take any route which leads to achieving it.
Consequentialist theory followers. Consequentialist theory followers focus mostly on the consequences of the decision and the action. The most famous consequentialist theory is Utilitarianism. This theory follows the principle of utility which assumes that the decision is ethical if it maximizes benefits to the society and minimizes harms.
Two dominant schools of thought exist in ethical objectivism. One sides with deontological theories, this is the Kant spectrum, where we see that what determines the right or wrongness of an act is the act itself. The second school basis itself on consequential theories, claiming that the determinate on whether an act is right or wrong are its consequences. These ideas seem as pleasing as relativism’s toleration, whereby every act is either right or wrong, and it is determinable by the standard it supposes. However, resembling relativism, flaws abound.