Consequentialism Ethics
An ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by what its consequences are
Consequentialism refers to a group of ethical theories that hold an act or institution to be right if it yields the most desirable effects of consequences.
Consequentialism’s definition merely holds that moral evaluation should focus on consequences.
This ethic contrasts with deontology, which is an ethical theory that evaluates a person’s will (intention) rather than consequences.
The goal of both ethical theories is to establish the basic principles of right action so that people can know what the right thing to do is.
While deontology cares about how and why an action is performed, consequentialism only cares about its effects.
Therefore, for consequentialism, “the end justifies the means.”
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes it this way:
[Consequentialism] embodies the basic intuition that what is best or right is whatever makes the world best in the future, because we cannot change the past.
While this definition of consequentialism brings this moral concept to light in its purest shape, many students of consequentialism practice it in a watered-down form, a period that has been coined “satisficing consequentialism.”
One example of consequentialism would be praising a burglar who accidentally robs a crime lord. While the burglars only sought to benefit themselves, their robbery stopped the crime lord from using their wealth to hurt others. Thus, the best overall consequences were achieved through robbery.
This way of questioning has been developed as a good way to allow practitioners of consequentialism idea to observe consequentialism ethics under a much less stringent umbrella.
For “satisficers,” in preference to the proper movement constantly being the movement that produces the maximum appropriate, the right motion(s) are those who produce sufficient precision.
For instance, a strict scholar of consequentialism theory ought to donate to the charity that they consider is generating the maximum truth within the world.
Satisficers, on the other hand, would recognize that most charities produce enough good, and donating to any one of them (assuming you do some basic homework) is better than not donating to any.
Non-Consequentialism: While the consequentialism principle would argue that the best intention of consequentialism ethics is to make the world a higher area, this definition of consequentialism doesn’t usually preserve up to a whole lot of scrutiny.
The opposite of consequentialism, referred to as non-consequentialism, argues that the capability consequences of a given movement must not be considered when determining the ethical best of a motion.
Certain readings of the non-consequentialism kingdom that the outcomes of a motion can in part be considered, however, they shouldn’t be the driving force of any choice.
Consequentialism ethics Examples
Consequentialism ethics supply consequentialists guidance each time they’re faced with a moral decision; with this steering coming in lots of forms.
It ought to be noted that in the beneath consequentialism examples, and all through this article as a whole, I am looking at this philosophy from the factor of view of “rule consequentialism” instead of “act consequentialism.”
A consequentialist who follows rule consequentialism makes use of a set of moral regulations, consisting of the aforementioned “the moral excellent of a movement is determined via its consequences,” as the rule they practice to many exclusive if not all, moves.
A consequentialist who follows act consequentialism, on the other hand, verifies each moral motion or choice on a case-through-case basis.
Here are three examples of consequentialism ethics gambling out in very extraordinary areas:
Baby Hitler: If you may pass back in time and kill Hitler as a baby, might you do it?
This question has been posed for decades, and it is a traditional example of consequentialism philosophy in movement.
Consequentialists would answer that yes, they could kill Hitler as an infant, as they recognize that at the same time as homicide is generally frowned upon, by killing toddler Hitler they will be saving the lives of thousands and thousands upon tens of millions of human beings; for that reason killing child Hitler is morally justified.
Non-consequentialists, alternatively, would argue that homicide is inaccurate in all situations, and consequently, regardless of their understanding of what not killing toddler Hitler will bring, they can’t morally allow themselves to kill Hitler as a baby.
Healthcare: Another instance of consequentialism philosophy in motion is the instance of consequentialism in healthcare.
If you worked in a sanatorium and the handiest had a sufficient dosage of a selected drug to either keep one patient who is seriously ill from death, or 5 sufferers who are much less ill and could percentage the dosage from demise, which might you choose?
A consequentialist would pick the five patients who require less of a dosage to receive the medicine, allowing the sixth affected person to die, as this produces the most moral properly.
A non-consequentialist, however, could infer no judgment over who’s greater worth of the medication, and might honestly administer the essential medicine on a first-come, first-serve basis, till it runs out.
Self-Driving Cars: Finally, a modern-day example of consequentialism philosophy in motion is the ethics related to self-riding motors.
The algorithms that electricity self-riding automobiles should make steady choices. Does the car need to gradually down? Is it safe to merge into the next lane?
Should it swerve and hit one infant, or live in that direction and hit two seniors?
The tragedy of the effects that self-using car algorithms have to take care of on a daily foundation are not extraordinary from the picks that human drivers need to make in a fraction of a 2nd, but the reality that these algorithms should be programmed through people offers any consequentialist pause.
Alternatives to Consequentialism Ethics
Alternatives to consequentialism range over what the good, most moral thing is that needs to be maximized. Here are three alternatives to consequentialism ethics:
Consequentialism vs. Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is one of the most prominent ethical theories, along with virtue ethical and Kantian approaches, currently held by practicing moral philosophers in the English-speaking world.
Often, utilitarianism is summarized thus: ‘The best thing is that which does the greatest good (or the least harm) to the greatest number (or the least number) of people.’
definition of utilitarianism implies consequentialism does not necessarily imply hedonism.
There are other forms of consequentialism. Consequentialism and utilitarianism might diverge, and diverge substantially.
Certain theories of consequentialism take a view of what is good for human beings, what they should value, and so what it is for actions that affect human beings to have good consequences, which goes beyond pleasure and pain.
Consequentialist theories which proceed from a theory of human welfare are known as ‘welfarist’ consequentialisms.
Of course, a hedonist thinks that for a human being to have a good life they should experience minimal pain and maximal pleasure. This is a theory of human welfare (of a kind).
Those who describe themselves as welfarists are generally attempting to draw a contrast between what we might want, and what is good for us.
Certainly, many ethicists would suggest that it is easier to claim that we always want pleasure and never want pain than that pleasure is always good for us and pain is never bad.
Consequentialism vs. Hedonism
Hedonism argues that people must maximize human satisfaction exceptionally else.
When making determinations of a motion’s moral features, a hedonist considers only if the motion is possible to supply pride.
When identifying between or more movements, a hedonist considers best which action will produce the most human delight.
Similar to utilitarianism, consequentialism, and hedonism (also known as hedonistic act utilitarianism) assess in how they define results.
While hedonists don’t forget the maximization of human pleasure, consequentialists take a much broader view.
Consequentialism vs. Deontology
Deontological ethics kingdom that an action’s morality is primarily based totally on whether the movement could be considered “right” or “wrong” according to a certain set of pre-determined rules.
(Think lower back to the toddler Hitler instance above; the non-consequentialists in that instance may also be called deontologists.)
In violent evaluation to consequentialism, deontological ethics decide that the outcomes of a movement maintain no cost in figuring out a motion’s moral cost.
I hope this brief advent to consequentialism ethics (which includes more than one consequentialism example in actual life) has helped increase your knowledge of this charming moral philosophy.
