Four Types Of Consequentialism

Consequentialism is determining whether actions are justified based on the consequences of the action. Singer’s approach of utilitarianism, a form of consequentialism, is deepened by arguing that the consequences of the action for all life that is able to perceive pleasure or pain must be taken into account in determining whether the action is right or wrong. Deontology takes a different approach to how actions are determined just. According to Regan’s view, an action is not considered right or wrong based on the consequence of the action, but on the action itself, referring to “moral rules and duties” (p.29). Regan focuses on the intrinsic value that pertains to animals and argues that since they have intrinsic value it is morally wrong

Consequentialism is a class of ethical theories stating that the consequences of one’s actions are the superior judge as far as to what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. The doctrine of Utilitarianism falls under the umbrella of consequentialism and suggests that actions are right if they are deemed as useful or are for the benefit of the majority. Alongside that, Utilitarians argue that everyone counts and everyone counts equally. This imposes that each being, belonging to the moral community, is owed a certain amount of respect and acknowledgment of needs. As far as who “everyone” truly is and who belongs in the moral community, Utilitarians believe that all beings that can suffer deserve a home in the moral community. Therefore humans and non-human animals, who are both susceptible to suffering, are morally equal.

As per its author of Alienation, Consequentialism, and Society, Railton’s opinion of what a sophisticated consequentialist is:

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 is a broad ethical theory that describes one 's actions to be good or bad depending solely upon the consequences of those actions. The distinguishing element of this theory from others is that the action itself has no value without analyzing the expected consequences, as explained by William H. Shaw in “Consequentialism”, “...when it comes to rightness or wrongness, nothing matters but the results of our actions” (Shaw 28). Then the question is, what exactly does it mean for a consequence to be deemed 'good '? Utilitarianism, a more specific form of consequentialism, answers this by describing a 'good ' action to be one that brings about the most happiness or well-being for everyone. John Stuart Mill states, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness: wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 7). This theory seems simple when applied to everyday situations. However, it can become tricky when applied to more complex, multi-faceted, situations. Obviously there are differentiating levels of happiness. For example, in a situation where it seems there may be no such thing as a happy outcome, the anticipated consequence that is deemed to be the 'lesser of two evils ' would be perceived to bring about the most well-being compared to the other choice. This theory may also seem difficult because it is based on

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.

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher considered to be the “central figure of modern philosophy” once said “All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason” (plato.stanford.edu). Reason is defined as “the power of the mind to think, understand and form judgments logically” (theoryofknowledge.net). There are two forms of reasoning, namely deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is to form a specific conclusion from a set of general premises. Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, is the formation of a general conclusion from a set of specific premises (sociology.about.com). In both, although the conclusion may or may not be true, the set of

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.

Analyzing this case through the lens of Consequentialism Theory (CT) will have two different results from two different points of view. CT says all acts are good if they produce a good result, but bad if they produce a bad result. It seems that redirecting money to pay off the medical expenses from the point view of Mr. GH and Mr. JB is an inconsequential behavior particularly Mr. GH immediately started to return back the money. However, on the other hand, this behavior had bad consequences for the TMI as Mr. GH despite of his fraud has received all his benefits, and will have bad consequences as TMI will lose public reputation and trust.

Deontology can be defined as “moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do, in contrast to other theories that guide and assess what kind of person we are should be (Alexander & Moore, 2007). Consequentialism “argues that the morality of an action is based on the action’s outcome or consequence, the action’s outcome or consequence, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome or result, and the consequences of an action or rule generally outweigh all other considerations” (Anonymous, n.d.). These two theories differ in various ways. While deontology focuses in the rightness and wrongness of one’s intent to conform to duty or laws, consequentialism emphasizes on the potential outcomes and

When studying a topic such as ethics, it forces you to search within yourself so that you may grasp the concepts of feelings that you have had your entire life. You knew what the feelings and emotions meant, but you never really understood why you felt the way that you did. Consequentialism relates to actions being “right” as long as they are beneficial consequences. Some believers of consequentialism see nothing wrong with even torture if something good comes out of it. If the outcome of a policy or practice is beneficial and it outweighs the harm done, then it calls be looked at as a “good” policy or practice (Williams & Arrigo, 2012). This perspective almost parallels the position of those individuals who believe that the “war on drugs”

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.

Utilitarians believe that whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the consequences it produces. An act that results in at least as much pleasure or well being as other alternative acts is right, and vice versa. In other words, any act that does not maximize pleasure is morally wrong. Even though utilitarian ethics often clashes with conventional norms, the conflict has no direct moral relevance to the action.

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.