Consequentialism: Jim And The Indians

Kant's deontological moral theory also claims that the right action in any given situation is determined by the categorical imperative, which provides a formulation by which we can apply our human reason to determine the right and rational thing to do, which is our duty to do it. This imperative applies to all rational beings independent of their desires and that reason tells us to follow no matter what. By his categorical imperative we

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

They assume that moral principles can be objectively true and that morality is not meaningless or relative. The decision- making procedure of a consequentialist is to identify what is worth having for its own sake, next, identify what is intrinsically bad, then, determine your options. The last two steps are to ask what is the value of the results of all of your options, and to pick the one that produces the most value.

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

Kantian ethics states that the action must be universally acceptable, in order to be moral. Thus, Jim cannot kill the man, it would not be a moral action,as killing is not a universally acceptable action. Secondly, another important part of Kant’s theory refers to humans, and how they should never be used as a means to an end. Instead, people should not be used as instruments for something else, no matter how worthy the aim may be. Thus, Jim would be killing the man in order to save the rest – so he would be using him as a means of achieving something else. Therefore, if he were to kill the man, in order to save the rest, his action would be

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

According to consequentialism, the right or wrong thing to do depends on what would lead to the best outcome; so each act is either morally required or morally forbidden. We can presume so that a consequentialist who finds himself in the situation of Jim

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.

According to consequentialism, anything that results in a positive outcome is morally just. For example: when Pi broke his vegetarian eating habits, lied, and killed animals, it is without a doubt that he followed consequentialism. The teen performed unethical acts in order to receive a positive outcome. Well, Pi isn’t the only one who goes by these standards; in fact, Niccolo Machiavelli also promotes consequentialism when he advocates killing, inserting fear into his subjects, and lying. When looking at the big picture, Pi and Machiavelli go through many of the same thought processes, all of which reflect consequentialism.

Is doing what is right always the right thing to do? According to Kant, the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but simply the motive that is behind that action (McCormick, n.d.).Immanuel Kant was a western philosopher that is still considered to be the most proponent concerning deontological, or duty based ethics and is thus considered very influential in the development of western philosophy. In that regard, If the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not on the outcome that is achieved by the action, but by the motive behind the action, then the action would be different (just or unjust), since the motive that can give an act moral value does not exist and cannot arise from Kant’s idea of universal principles of reason.

Kant is considered a non-consequentiality, which means he feels the intentions motives, and good will is more important than the results or consequences of an action. The backbone of Kant's philosophy is the belief in the fundamental freedom of the individual. Kant did

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.

Kant believes that all people come to moral conclusions about right and wrong based on rational thought. Deontological moral systems are characterized by a focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. To make the correct moral choices, we have to understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules exist to regulate those duties. When we follow our duty, we are behaving morally. When we fail to follow our duty, we are behaving immorally. Deontological moral systems typically stress the reasons why certain actions are performed. Simply following the correct moral rules is often not sufficient; instead, we have to have the correct motivations. This might allow a person to not be considered immoral even though they have broken a moral rule, but only so long as they were motivated to adhere to some correct moral duty. Nevertheless, a correct motivation alone is never a justification for an action in a deontological moral system and cannot be used as a basis for describing an action as morally correct. It is also not enough to simply believe that something is the correct duty to follow. Duties and obligations must be determined objectively and absolutely, not subjectively. There is no room in deontological systems of subjective feelings; on the contrary, most adherents condemn subjectivism and relativism in all their forms.