Consequentialism : A Moral Theory

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

The modern theory of utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism--"the view that normative properties depend only on consequences;" that is to say, in other words,

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

Although there are many admirable qualities of consequentialism, there are reasonable objections to this theory. One of the main objections comes from the notion that one could violate another individual’s rights while acting in accordance with consequentialism. Shafer-Landau utilizes the example of torture to elaborate on the first objection (148). Obviously torture infringes on one’s intrinsic rights, but if torture in a particular circumstance provides more good than bad, it is morally acceptable. Some find this troubling, and thus find this objection grounds for consequentialism’s invalidity.

Sophisticated consequentialism is a hybrid, as it adopts the ideological tenants of both modalities of consequentialism and allows for the nuance of personal relationships to at times, override the adherence to a presumed action based upon the tenants of consequentialism. The sophisticated consequentialist may accept the reality that saving their one true love, is ideologically less beneficial than saving the three strangers, however the consequentialist would also take into the account of their personal feelings and the perceived total good that they may experience with that person over a lifetime as more beneficial than saving a higher quantity of strangers. At this, the sophisticated consequentialist is adopting the subjective consequentialist view of the intent to save one’s love, and experience more moments with them and bring about a higher amount of happiness than saving those three strangers. In this, I believe that sophisticated consequentialism is giving credence and importance to the personal point of view, as a textbook definition of a consequentialist theory would point to saving the

The primary form of consequentialism used by the majority of individuals when making ethical decisions is known as Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism weighs the outcomes by whether they create pleasure or pain for the individuals involved. This creates a standard when evaluating the consequences rather than allow the individual to create their own (Kyte 108). Even though there is a plethora of different pleasures and pains of various forms and severities. Since we often choose familiar pleasure, only an individual familiar in both side can voice their opinion based on their understanding of both sides. However, it is not always easy to make accurate predictions on the outcomes and also consider the consequences of every individual that could be effected by the decision (Kyte 120, 122). Even though we understand the concept of consequences, it is not easy to think of every potential one, how they affect others, and whether they cause pleasure or

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.

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

Mill dedicates his third chapter to the consequences for rejecting utility. Mill divides these consequences into external sanctions, which take the form of peer pressure or religious motivation, and internal sanctions, which take the form of discomfort of the conscience. Mill asserts that any person can be raised to cultivate certain internal sanctions (e.g., utilitarianism). However, Mill distinguishes utilitarianism

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).

The pure model of consequentialism focuses on the punishment itself as a means of deterrence of future crime