The Moral Nature Of An Action

Although there are many admirable qualities of consequentialism, there are reasonable objections to this theory. One of the main objections comes from the notion that one could violate another individual’s rights while acting in accordance with consequentialism. Shafer-Landau utilizes the example of torture to elaborate on the first objection (148). Obviously torture infringes on one’s intrinsic rights, but if torture in a particular circumstance provides more good than bad, it is morally acceptable. Some find this troubling, and thus find this objection grounds for consequentialism’s invalidity.

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.

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

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.

Core to this belief is the notion that solving ethical dilemmas should be determined by the best option that presents the fewest consequences.

Within this framework, actions that are likely to maximize good effects, or minimize the occurrence of bad effects, are those kinds of actions one is permitted, or obligated (highlighted for emphasis) to perform (though in this framework ‘good’ and ‘bad’ do not necessarily have to be defined strictly in terms of ‘welfare’ and ‘suffering’) (p. 639).

Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics explores the idea of an ethical framework based on virtues, deliberation, and choice. The key to being virtuous is to strike a balance between the extremes on either side of a virtue. Arriving at what constitutes as a virtuous balance is achieved through the process of deliberation and then action. Sartre and the existentialists say that existence precedes essence; the good starts from human subjectivity rather than from known virtues. Through a person’s choices, they determine what is good. Though their theories of what constitutes the good may differ, choice is a key element of both ethical frameworks. The differences that each ethical framework has about what the good is are not mutually exclusive. In

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.

The basic idea of Rule Consequentialism is that what is morally right is based on how the action stands to an ideal code of rules. The Theory of Right Conduct states “an action A is right if and only if (and because) A is not prohibited by an ideal code of rules.” A wrong action, then, would be prohibited by said code (155).

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.

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.