Non Consequentialist Moral Theory

Sophisticated consequentialism is a hybrid, as it adopts the ideological tenants of both modalities of consequentialism and allows for the nuance of personal relationships to at times, override the adherence to a presumed action based upon the tenants of consequentialism. The sophisticated consequentialist may accept the reality that saving their one true love, is ideologically less beneficial than saving the three strangers, however the consequentialist would also take into the account of their personal feelings and the perceived total good that they may experience with that person over a lifetime as more beneficial than saving a higher quantity of strangers. At this, the sophisticated consequentialist is adopting the subjective consequentialist view of the intent to save one’s love, and experience more moments with them and bring about a higher amount of happiness than saving those three strangers. In this, I believe that sophisticated consequentialism is giving credence and importance to the personal point of view, as a textbook definition of a consequentialist theory would point to saving the

A consequentialist, like Joshua Greene for example, would argue that morality is “goal directed”. If the goal that is desired is moral, then the decisions and actions to achieve this goal are also moral. If the consequences are good, then a person’s actions are good; if the consequences are bad, a person’s actions are bad or immoral, according to consequentialists. Therefore, from the utilitarian perspective, human behavior is neither good or bad, right or wrong; it is the consequences of the behaviors and actions that determine the morality (Behrens and Rosen 280). In the book “Utlitarianiam: A Guide for the Perplexed”, Krister Bykvist explains the classic version of utilitarianism, known as the maximizing act-utilitarianism, says that “an act is right just in case it leads to more total well-being than any other alternative action” (Bykvist). This approach tries to both increase good consequences and to reduce bad consequences (Behrens and Rosen 276). The utilitarian approach, therefore, does not base morality upon emotional feelings, but rather upon reason

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

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 type of theory that was developed to come up with a proper course of action that maximizes the joy of the stakeholders involved. While consequentialism is defined as the view that value of an action derives solely from the value of its consequences. Today, consequentialism is the form that usually takes form. Utilitarianism tries to evaluate the moral worth of an action after one has considered the actual consequences, the foreseen consequences, and the anticipated consequences. In the business environment, situations arise that require the application of utilitarianism ethics. Decision makers are placed on notice and utilitarianism takes priority over the

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.

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.

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.

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,

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 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.

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

Consequentialism is an ethical perception where one primarily focuses on the outcome in reference to a particular action. This framework would guide one, aiming to exclude the negative result, allowing yourself to conclude to a moral assumption. This ethic is majorly diverse to its opposition: deontology.

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).