In his paper "Alienation, Consequentialism and Morality" Peter Railton describes "Sophisticated consequentialism" and gives an example in Juan, a sophisticated consequentialist. Juan spends money on a plane ticket to visit his wife when she expresses her need for his presence, instead of donating that money to Oxfam. Sophisticated consequentialism is a view that rejects acting by strict act or rule consequentialism as a decision procedure, instead, focusing on what truly maximizes the good. If this seems vague, that's okay, I'll elaborate more below. My argument is that Juan is a consequentialist for sure, and while sophisticated consequentialism has some caveats, those caveats strengthen it. Despite that, I'll conclude my argument by stating that trait consequentialism, or even sophisticated trait consequentialism, …show more content…
Consequentialism is a moral theory that prioritizes maximizing the good for all. There are many possible definitions of what 'the good' is. And Railton rejects hedonistic utilitarianism which has happiness as the answer and defines the good as those things that are intrinsically, non-morally valuable such as "happiness, knowledge, purposeful activity, autonomy, solidarity, respect, and beauty" (149). And I'm inclined to agree. Act consequentialism means one is morally required at every moment to take the action that maximizes the good for all. Unless stated otherwise as distinct from act consequentialism, I'm writing with act-based consequentialism in mind. Railton defined two senses of act consequentialism: Subjective consequentialism means that at any point one should take the action that would promote the most good. Meaning that one is taking the right action as long as they're making a decision based on an act of consequentialist decision. (152) Objective consequentialism on the other hand says that the right action to take would be the one that
A common objection to consequentialism, that agents are burdened with duties to help others at the expense of their own happiness, was not even addressed. This in itself seems to be one form of absolutism that riddles consequentialism in general. Nielsen made it clear that one should not be absolute about insisting on weighing consequences when they are barely known, but would he reject this notion as well? It is not clear that this absolutism, of always valuing the good of others over the agent’s own self, is separable from the concept of consequentialism; so it is not clear that consequentialism can escape absolutism as Nielsen concluded in the second argument recounted here.
According to the book Shafer Landau an act utilitarianism is “the version of act consequentialism that says that only well-being is intrinsically valuable, and so says that an act is morally right just because it maximizes overall well-being” (Shafer Landau, G1). In the other words, it means that the act that produces the maximum of the happiness at that time than any other act. Another similar example of this act for the better understanding is, if I have a friend and being with her gives me the most happiness than being with any other friends at that time, but it does not give the same happiness to her and I am unaware about it at that time then it’s also defines as an act utilitarian. It is act utilitarian because I am still getting the most happiness at that time.
In “Consequentialism and Integrity,” Bernard Williams criticizes consequentialism on the ground that it is inherently unreasonable due to its insistence on negative responsibility, and as a result, denies the agent integrity. Peter Railton’s “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality” is a response to Williams and a defense of consequentialism. In the following essay, I will explain Williams’s attack on consequentialism, and Railton’s argument that consequentialism need not deny the agent integrity. I will then consider an objection to Railton’s argument, and then evaluate a possible Railtonian response.
Consequentialism is a term used by the philosophers to simplify what is right and what is wrong. Consequentialist ethical theory suggests that right and wrong are the consequences of our actions. It is only the consequences that determine whether our actions are right or wrong. Standard consequentialism is a form of consequentialism that is discussed the most. It states that “the morally right action for an agent to perform is the one that has the best consequences or that results in the most good.” It means that an action is morally correct if it has little to no negative consequences, or the one that has the most positive results.
Consequentialism is the view that, according to FoE, the morality of actions, policies, motives, or rules depends on their producing the best actual or expected results. In other words, do as much good as you can. Act utilitarianism, a sub-group of consequentialism, claims that well-being is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable, and that an action is morally required just because it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstances. Basically, Act utilitarianism agrees completely with consequentialism, but ensure that those actual or expected results end up improving well-being. Consequentialism, as a whole, while extremely similar to other moral theories, such as hedonism and the desire theory, are, in fact, slightly different. Hedonism claims that a life is good to the extent that it is filled with pleasure and free from pain, and consequentialists, while not disagreeing with hedonism, would say that the pleasure and freedom from pain depends entirely on the actual or expected results. The desire theory claims that something is good for you if, and only if, it satisfies your desires and because it satisfies your desires, while consequentialists would say that those desires should improve overall well-being, and not to be selfish about it.
Consequentialism tells us not to look at the act, but to look at the outcome. The one thing that Jim should consider is how many lives are saved. To kill one of the Indians in order to save nineteen or to not kill and all 20 will die. Jim would Compare and weigh both outcomes. Therefore, Jim as a consequentialist chooses the better outcome and kills one in order to save the other nineteen Indians. Who does the act is morally irrelevant, when the outcome is for the good of the whole. This is what matters as the greatest happiness principle like John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) who gives importance to the consequences of the act for the good of the whole. The outcome is what matters and not the process that gave rise to the outcome. Therefore, a consequentialist sacrifices his morality in order to save 19 lives. In this case, Jim has to choose who of the Indians to kill in order to save the rest of the nineteen India...
Act-utilitarianism is a direct form of consequentialism in that its principles are applied directly to ones actions under particular circumstances and the action is then judged as morally permissible or impermissible based solely on whether your action achieved or failed to maximise pleasure. In contrast, rule-utilitarianism is considered indirect because your actions are carried out according to a set of accepted moral rules of which compliance with which would ensure maximum aggregate good. Whether an action is morally permissible or impermissible is judged on your adherence to the agreed set of moral rules as opposed to the direct outcome of your actions. It would seem already that rule-utilitaria...
Consequentialism is an ethical perspective that primarily focuses upon the consequences resulting from an action and aims to eliminate the negative consequences. Within this framework there are three sub-categories: Egoism, Altruism and Utilitarianism.
Let us discuss consequentialism first. Consequencialism focuses on consequences as the most important factor in the decision making process (Donaldson 3). For consequentialists, the motives of an act are not as important as what comes out of it. Utilitarianism is one of the branches of consequentialism. Utilitarianism believes in the greatest good for the number (Donaldson 3).
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.
Moreover, in consequentialist normative principles " it require us that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action." Then, identify if the "total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences." If based in our analysis the good "consequences are greater," then "the action is morally proper. In the given situation, stealing for food for a hungry child suggest plenty of good consequences when we try to focus on the true and good intention of the agent. We may think that he is good because he/she is trying to save only the boy from hunger or even from tragic death. Thus, millions of children around the world had died because of
Therefore, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome or result and the ends justify the means. This would mean that a consequentialist person would make their ethical decisions based on costs and benefits, so the morally right action is one of the best overall consequences. The benefits of this approach are that you have to take into consideration all alternatives and think about what consequences will follow your actions. Like deontology, there are problems with having a fully consequential ethical view. It is important to note that with the positives there are also problems that can arise with this point of view. The major problem with this approach is how can you efficiently calculate the greatest good? as you are required to guess the benefits of the outcome of your choice?. One example of this could be what if a solution drastically harms a minority group, would it is considered ethical if the majority group benefited from the consequential decision. It is important to realize that this would negate the goal of public relations which is to build relationships and trust with all stakeholder groups. Grunig states that this is a faulty line of reasoning when he suggested that “We believe, in contrast, the public relations should be based on a worldview that incorporates ethics
Act-consequentialism is a moral theory that maintains what is right is whatever brings about the best consequences impartially considering. The main and most renowned form of act-consequentialism is act utilitarianism which advocates agents choosing the moral path that creates the greatest good for the greatest number, this being the most widely known form of act-consequentialism is the moral theory that I shall be concentrating on though out my discussion. Impartiality is the notion that everybody should count for one and nobody more than one, which is often considered to be a “double-edged sword” (Jollimore, 2017) meaning there is debate as to whether impartiality is a strength or weakness of the theory. Throughout my essay I attempt to point out an important misunderstanding made by theories that uphold impartiality as a weakness of act-consequentialism and how this could lead to the view that impartiality is in fact a strength of both act utilitarianism and act consequentialism.
Theme of Alienation in Literature A common theme among the works of Nathaniel Hawthorne is alienation. Alienation is defined as emotional isolation or dissociation from others. In Hawthorne's novels and short stories, characters are consistently alienated and experience isolation from society. These characters are separated from their loved ones both physically and psychologically. The harsh judgmental conditions of Puritan society are the cause of isolation for these characters and eventually lead to their damnation.
Consequentialism is the state in which people participate in actions which are morally correct and which will have positive results in the future. Basically, consequentialism largely affects the actions that people take in life (Hume, 1888). For example, most people will want to participate in actions or do things that will have positive results in future. Some may decide to have relationships which will lead to marriage. Others may decide to have many friends who can help them when they need help.