Consequentialism: Bernard Williams And Paul Hurley

If intelligent personal choices are not well-built, the conflicts can one or the other have a positive or negative conclusion. In Williams “The

Based on the procedures mentioned in our text book, our moral choices should take into account our specific duties, any essential ideals that our actions would support or weaken, and, finally, the effects or consequences of the different options open to us. In taking into consideration the last part of the above statement, remember that even loyal non-consequentialists recognize that the likely results of our actions are relevant to their moral assessment and that we have some duty to promote human well-being (Shaw 402).

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

Utilitarianism is a practical doctrine that is widely accepted in modern society’s economics, politic, and ethics. Utilitarian is driven by the pursuit of happiness. For a utilitarian, everything that will be helpful in the pursuit is considered good. In utilitarianism, an action is good or evil based on its consequences on the happiness of an individual and the happiness of the community. Similar to other doctrine, utilitarianism is not without a flaw. Bernard Williams, in his paper Utilitarianism and Integrity, voices his primary concern in regard to utilitarianism by providing two concrete examples to demonstrate how utilitarianism is only concerned about the consequences of the action and not about the means used to get there. Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge the integrity of a person because the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest happiness overall.

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.

Thus, utilitarian’s focus on the consequences of an act rather than on its intrinsic nature or the motives of the agent. Utilitarianism as I defined it seems to look over whether or not a consequence is given when a person acts on something or doesn’t act on something. In Williams argument he believes in order for utilitarianism and consequentialism to be consistent a person or agent must be blamed for consequences of not doing something or an inaction. This is known as negative responsibility. The responsibility for doing something is called positive responsibility. Williams continues to argue that negative responsibility is no more or less justifying than positive responsibility. Williams states “ that if I’m ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent, as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted, bring about” pg 95. With the talk of negative responsibility in front of us I will reference an example give by Williams in his text. Jim finds himself in a small town in what seems to be the center square in South America. In front of him, tied up, are twenty frightened Indians. In front of the Indians stand several uniformed men with weaponry. A heavy man who seems to be the leader or captain in charge, questions Jim on how he got there. Which was by accident

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.

The basic idea of Rule Consequentialism is that what is morally right is based on how the action stands to an ideal code of rules. The Theory of Right Conduct states “an action A is right if and only if (and because) A is not prohibited by an ideal code of rules.” A wrong action, then, would be prohibited by said code (155).

Williams has a recurring gripe with the ideas of utilitarianism. He believes that in making a utilitarian decision one must forget his integrity, for in making his decision, it is not his personal reputation which takes priority.

There is only the benefit of having done the right thing. He feels Utilitarianism is missing one key factor, taking our integrity in consideration. In this essay I will present Williams argument coherently and discuss using Glover’s “it makes no difference” argument to show why Williams’ view is invalid. We will explore this all through Williams’ cases of Jim and George. George is faced with accepting a job at a biological research plant which goes against his morals in order to provide for his family.

Act consequentialism is the philosophical belief that an action is right if it brings about the best consequences or state of affairs out of all of the actions that are available to an agent. For example, a man comes to your house and tells you to tell him where your father is so that he can kill him. The act consequentialist would say that it is perfectly acceptable to lie about the whereabouts of your father in order to save his life. This is because telling the truth would result in your father’s death, your family members suffering, as well as the pain and guilt that you would feel by being ultimately responsible for his death. Thereby in this example lying would bring the best state of affairs out of all the actions that the agent can think of at that given time.

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

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