Ethics : Ethics And Ethics

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

Thus the former is morally culpable for the actions of the latter by virtue of being the cause of the action. Opponents of consequentialism argue that negative responsibility, and the consequentialist doctrine as a whole, is unacceptable because it reduces an agent to merely “a locus of causal intervention in the world.” Instead of being people, agents are no more than origin points of cause and effect, and their integrity is forfeit as a result. Although Williams dedicates a significant portion of his paper to illustrating the problem of integrity, he offers no defense against it. In fact, he acknowledges that life-defining projects and integrity exist, agrees that it is absurd to expect an agent to discard them in order to be moral, and then departs from the problem of integrity without further discussion.

As opposed to the deontological account, the consequentialist believes in the prior conception of the good. If something is good then it is right to promote something good according to consequentialism (Lillehammer, 2011, p. 90). Moreover, the actions with the best end results or consequences are what are to be evaluated as good. It must be clear that good intentions are not, at all, of value to consequentialists. Further, it is important to note that in decision-making, a consequentialist must hold to the demands of impartiality. Consequentialism upholds the idea that no one person is worth more than another (Lillehammer, 2011, p. 90).

Consequentialism states that an act is moral if the consequence of the act will bring the greatest amount of good and immoral if the act will bring bad consequences.

what decisions and actions bring about, not directly to the decisions or actions themselves. Some consequentialists, for example, would argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with an act of torture; instead, the moral permissibility of torture should be judged only by the good that it yields relative to

When analyzing consequentialism, one would come to the conclusion that it is a monistic view. Particularism challenges consequentialism when it states to always choose the action with the maximal amount of goodness to come of it. What if a human was in a situation where one had to make a decision where both outcomes are equally good/bad. The example of whether a perfectly healthy man should be sacrificed for 5 ill humans in need of organs. The goodness of saving 5 lives as opposed to one is considered to produce more goodness than keeping one life. Obviously, this is not how our world works. The rule of consequentialism does not hold it's own with this example. Consequentialism bases their way of making decisions by using a form of measurement. It seems that not all choices in life are that easy to make, especially by solely measuring happiness. Particularism focuses more on particular circumstances. What could create more goodness in one situation could do the opposite in another situation. Who is to say what creates the most happiness? One human may believe action a will create more happiness than action b, but another human may believe action b will create more happiness. Consequentialism seems to be a good view for the overall wellness

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

Morality, thus, should not be contingent upon conditions or expectations of reciprocity nor should it exclude personal feelings such as love, as it is particularly this characteristic that prevents one from alienation. Railton believes that subjective consequentialism, which requires one to perform before-action deliberate to yield the best consequence, is what produces alienation causing not only “psychological affliction” on oneself, but also to others (137). So, when moral actions become the means for yet another end, one is not acting for the good as an end in itself. Acknowledging the misconception–utilitarian understanding–of consequentialism, Railton expounds upon “sophisticated consequentialism,” which is objective consequentialism in form, but does not endorse subjective consequentialism, leaving space for other forms of decision-making such as love (153). In essence, sophisticated consequentialism is developing dispositions that, ultimately, lead to good, so that one can “allocate” time efficiently, and at the same time able to justify or judge one’s action based on universal morality

As mentioned above, consequentialism is contrasted with theories of moral evaluation. It implies that consequences may not be pertinent to the morality of one's actions. Consequentialism lessens the moral quality of an action to the goodness of its consequences (WirelessPhilosophy, 2015). For instance, one ought to keep a promise although the secret does not promote the good.

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

As John Mizzoni explains, “Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” Essentially, he is stating

By it’s nature, Classical Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which believes that the action that is deemed as morally right is the action that results in the most good or maximum utility. (Driver, J. 2014). Classical Utilitarianism also ignores the sole intent behind the action to focus on the consequences and promotes the pleasure for the greater good (Green, H. 2016). Utilitarianism falls under two schools of thought, including Rule Utilitarianism, which considers an action that leads to the greater good based on whether or not it adheres to a rule based on circumstance, and Act Utilitarianism, which considers whether a person’s

"In other words, the utilitarian holds that we judge the morality of an action in terms of the consequences or results of that action." (Braswell, McCarthy, & McCarthy, 2002) "The insight that motivates consequentialism is this: a moral action produces something good; an immoral action produces a bad or harmful result." (Braswell, McCarthy, & McCarthy,

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

According to Immanuel Kant the driving force behind our actions should be dictated by what is inherently good as sole consideration and not be based upon the effects of what such actions may produce such as the case in the consequentialist theory of cause. In this essay Kant’s ethical non-consequentialist theory will be briefly investigated and a comparison drawn between the two different theories in order to establish merit in employment thereof in practice.