Pros And Cons Of Consequentialism

Answer 2:

1) Consequentialism, it says that an action can be judged as ethical or unethical based on the consequences it creates, practices which bring in a person cannot predict consequences beforehand, an art which could be gained with experience.

Consequentialism has its types to evaluate morality, here it is by the human practices based on their act, the rules, the motives behind a specific practice and the character traits of a person who decides.

Classic Utilitarianism is regarded as a generally accepted version of consequentialism. An action is considered moral based on the Utility, which is personal satisfaction, commonly stated as “happiness” minus the pain. Thus, an action is morally good or bad is based upon the rise and fall

This is also a one-time payment, and will not be a continuous outflow of money to those officials. Considering, all my paperwork is perfectly filed and correct, I am not gaining personal benefits out of this transaction, apart from saving my job which is again my duty and responsibility towards my life bringing “happiness” to me and my family. Hence the motive behind this is not just to get a contract but a lot more than that and according to me considering the current scenario it is morally correct.

2) Deontology, on the contrary, describes two types of ethical imperatives. First, a hypothetical imperative and other categorical imperative. Both these tell to be morally correct but prior is done to create a win-win situation, by establishing a good relationship which could be helpful in the future and the latter tells to make an action which is morally correct no matter what the consequences be, good or

He says that such law was made to reduce the crime rates, because they are morally incorrect, no matter they are done for good or bad. In the early 20th century, W.D Ross devised a pluralist approach where he focuses morality in various duties such as keeping promises, repairing the previous mistakes, returning to those who have benefitted us previously, promoting goodness, and lastly not to harm anyone.

In this scenario, considering the aspects of both these scholars, the action of bribing a foreign official doesn’t favor an ethical behavior, but as per the pluralist theory by W.D. Ross, this action is promoting goodness being beneficial to the people of Kalao, who would be working in the company. It also doesn’t harm anyone considering the consequences of such bribe.

Thus, Deontology has a broad approach and has many nuances to consider an action ethically correct or incorrect. Thus, according to my decision of bribing a foreign official the idea behind deontology doesn’t specify that my decision is