Ethical Consequences Of Consequentialism

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

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

Williams defines consequentialism as a maximizing principle which regards actions as valuable only in relation to the goodness of the state of affairs they produce. Actions are not intrinsically ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but rather an action is morally correct “in virtue of its causal properties of maximally conducing to good states of affairs” (24). Williams extends this causal relationship to include negative responsibility. He argues that from a consequentialist perspective, an agent is equally responsible for the actions they allow or simply do not prevent as they are for the actions they take themselves. All varieties of ‘causal connections’ between an action (or inaction) and a produced state of affairs are equal in importance. Thus, if one

Consequentialism is a moral theory that attempts to explain what is right and what is wrong. It considers the consequences of the action to be the only point of concern. It follows the phrase, “the ends justify the means.” Many issues have been raised with this moral theory including the issue of alienation from one’s morals, one’s self, and others. In Peter Railton’s Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality, he addresses these issues in an attempt to reduce the amount of alienation, but also defend the need for a certain amount of it, and by doing this defend consequentialism.

These questions cannot be answered logically due to the very nature of the notion itself.

Ethics is the moral criteria that we as human beings have. They are the rules of the game that are supposed to guide us through our decision making in life and how to behave to one another as part of a society. However, there are different perspectives on how this criteria should be used, and when and whom they apply to. I will focus on the three most influential moral theories: virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism. Although there are many great names of philosophers that fall in those theories, I will be discussing Aristotle, Kant, and Mill’s perspective, respectively.

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,

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because the premise of its idea it is that the results of

Consequentialist moral theory is a branch of ethics which is centered around morality being the result of an outcome of a certain action. The consequence of an action is the premise which defines what is moral and what is immoral. The morality is found in two areas of goods, instrumental goods and intrinsic goods. Instrumental goods are goods that allow us to acquire other goods. Intrinsic goods are goods that have some form of worth in which we desire, but may not lead us to receiving or obtaining more of such goods.

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.

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

In certain scenarios regarding Ethics, it is common to reach a conclusion through the concept of Consequentialism. This is said to have been accurate for centuries, as Consequentialism focuses strictly on the outcome and consequences of actions. The reason for this is the common belief by many that outcome is everything. Throughout the last three weeks, I have developed a better view on Consequentialism. Through the writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Mill, I have learned basic methods of applying Utilitarianism and Consequentialism to ethical situations. As a brief overview, Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing the “good” and minimizing the “bad” in life. The broader concept of Consequentialism seeks the positive aspects and despises the negative.

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.

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).

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.