Are Sophisticated Consequentialism A Alternative Consequentialist? Essay

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

John Stuart Mill’s political philosophy is consequentialist due to the fact that utilitarianism is directly related to one’s happiness and reality in which they come to the point of being happy. Consequentialist is the philosophy that say the right moral decision produces the best consequence. An individual’s happiness is related and defined upon the ethics of morality, of an action based upon the outcome of that actions consequence. Mill defines “happiness as pleasure and the absence pain” (Mill). Thus, consequentialist and utilitarianism are directly related due to the fact the overall consequences of one’s actions are the direct result of defining both terms. At moral terms, utilitarian means to recognize that the greater good of others should be something that is sacrificed to truly meet the greater good of all people versus just one’s self. Thus, the action of making a sacrifice for others in a moral sense is creating a greater good and increase of what such happiness could be if actions were taking into account for all and not for the greater good of one’s self. In political terms, utilitarian simply means doing what is right for the people versus what the government feels is right to do. Mills would then reference that making decisions should be calculated by your pleasure. Mill’s defines utilitarianism as “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended

Its general outline is the moral rightness of an action is determined by outcomes. For example, a student was struggling to help an old lady who has fallen on ground while other people do not even care about it and a student had to leave in a hurry. However, he helped her and a lady offered cordial thanks. As the example is illustrated, the act is good if its consequences are good, but if its consequences are bad then the act is wrong. Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) emphasizes that consequentialists determine what is right by weighing the ratio of good to bad that an action will produce. According to consequentialists, the decision of the Dean of Harvard Business School is simply explained as the result of decision which rejected all applicants who attempted to access the information derive a conclusion which Dean Clark observed their belief, principles and it shows making own decisions is always with responsibility for actions. In addition, utilitarianism will be applied on this case because this theory is in contrast with egoism which can be defined by Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) as egoism contends that an act is morally right if and only if it best promotes an agent’s long term interest.’. It means self-interesting is most important key point whether going into action or not. However, Utilitarianism is focused on more about ‘achieving the

explains the consequentialist as the idea of looks to the consequence of an action in order to evaluate it. Even if the intention of the action is wrong or violent someone’s right, the its result for the general good is still the focus. In the other hand, deontological is more about the idea of only right or wrong. There is no intention or consequence, just with the moralistic ethics. One example of contrast he used in the book is the idea of utilitarian. Utilitarian can be express in the prospect of consequentialist ethics, because it will look at individual situation and create a decision that will benefit the greater people. However, the same situation in the idea of deontological

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.

Essentially, consequentialism tries to rationalize a situation by saying that the right action would be the one with the most number of good consequences and most beneficial for the individuals involved (youtube.com) (bbc.co.uk). Reason in consequentialism, does not differentiate the right and wrong, but rather it crafts out the different consequences and options. Thus, people are able to reach a conclusion as to what to do through deductive reasoning, where they deduce the right action (conclusion) from consequences

This essay will provide a theoretical understanding of the four ethical frameworks: Consequentialism, Non- Consequentialism, Virtue Ethics and Care Ethics. When applied to a situation these frameworks help teachers to resolve and justify their decision making. The objective is to apply the four frameworks to the scenario Helping Molly, to establish the most ethical course of action. Finally, a recommended course of action will be justification. The overarching ethical issue present within the Helping Molly scenario is the community sponsorship and the alignment with school beliefs and initiatives.

When studying a topic such as ethics, it forces you to search within yourself so that you may grasp the concepts of feelings that you have had your entire life. You knew what the feelings and emotions meant, but you never really understood why you felt the way that you did. Consequentialism relates to actions being “right” as long as they are beneficial consequences. Some believers of consequentialism see nothing wrong with even torture if something good comes out of it. If the outcome of a policy or practice is beneficial and it outweighs the harm done, then it calls be looked at as a “good” policy or practice (Williams & Arrigo, 2012). This perspective almost parallels the position of those individuals who believe that the “war on drugs”

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

Consequentialist: Focuses on the result of an action. The act is considered a good act if the result is good, likewise and act is considered bad if the result produced is bad. Under the consequentialist theory, we have Egoism and Utilitarianism.

1. Consequentialist moral theories see the moral rightness or wrongness of actions as a function of their results. If the consequences are sufficiently good, the action is right; if they are sufficiently bad, the action is wrong. However, nonconsequentialist theories see other factors as also relevant to the determination of right and wrong.

Two examples or branches of consequentialism are egoism and utilitarianism. The definition of utilitarianism is simply, doing the most good for the most people. The definition of egoism is the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest; selfishness. Egoism is simply about you and you’re self-interest compared to utilitarianism is looking at others interests. There are pros and cons to each branch; however I personally think egoism is the better model. Both represent or contain an aspect of ethics but, egoism I believe is reflected or more related to the average person in everyday life.

There are three main terms I will be referencing in this paper. The first is consequentialism. Consequentialism is, at heart, a framework

Numerous moral theories have surfaced in the past years. They have been widely debated by philosophers and social reformers. It is important to understand what these theories are because of their influential tendencies in the way people act, especially in making morally right or wrong decisions. Utilitarianism is one of these many moral theories. Upon further analysis, problems with utilitarian thoughts are revealed. It has been widely debated by many philosophers, including G.E. Moore and Immanuel Kant. Like these two philosophers, I argue that utilitarianism is inadequate because of its contradictory nature as a moral theory. It highlights the principle of utility in seeking the greatest pleasure, allowing egotistic and hedonistic actions to be considered moral.

In the consequentialist theory; all what matters is the consequences, means do not have any importance as long the end result is achieved (Trevino p 40), and utilitarianism theory is may be the best known consequentialist theory (Trevino p 40).