Examples Of Act Consequentialism

As someone who is new to the study of ethics, I’ve found it quite fascinating and incredible the amount of different theories circulating the subject. It’s not all that surprising, though, just take the thousands of different religions that exist, so it’d be silly to assume that you could get everyone to agree on morality and ethics. It does, however, present a rather difficult task of attempting to appeal one way or the other, but I’ll do my best.

First, I want to touch on act-consequentialism and why I disagree with this theory and lead into which ethical theory, or combination, I do support. The premise of act-consequentialism is that the amount of goodness from your actions determines whether it’s the morally correct decision to make,

you should choose to do that which causes the most good, and do so impartially. How, I must ask, can someone determine what all the effects will be of their decision before making that decision? Can they see into the future? What happens when you are faced with a split-second decision? No, you cannot see into the future, which shines a spotlight on a very big gaping hole within the idea of act-consequentialism.

Now, you could- and I’m sure this would be argued- rely upon history to decide the outcome of certain decisions, but certainly doesn’t apply to every situation, and you definitely cannot guarantee that an outcome will replicate exactly what happened in the past. The other problem is that making a decision based on the outcome or possible outcome of a decision relies upon each personal interpretation of the situation at hand, and implies that these people will, in fact, be impartial- which is a massive assumption to make.

Another area of act-consequentialism that really presents a problem is friendship and the loyalty one has to that friendship.

As outlined in the textbook, there is no room for moral ties, and thus friendship, or even going above and beyond the call of duty. That alone presents a very cold outlook on life, which is a stark contrast to what act-consequentialism is supposed to be- which is to promote as much good as possible with the decisions we make. With consequentialism, it would be acceptable to push an old lady in front of an oncoming train to slow that train and thus save the lives of six workers further down the tracks. Consequentialism would need a complete re-working of laws such as murder to work, creating a whole hosts of other moral problems and

debates.

This leads us into which theory I think is superior when it comes to making moral decisions in conflicting moral situations, organizing our moral experience, and conforming to our moral intuitions. A combination of Rossian deontology which possesses special obligations and options, as well as virtue ethics. Life is full of challenging situations that we are faced with each and every day, some more challenging than others, and what I’ve come to understand is that Ross’ version of deontology will offer the best way to make challenging moral decisions.

Ross doesn’t eliminate lying, in fact he says it depends on the particulars of the case, which is a key element to point out, and something that I find would conform to our own moral intuitions. If, for example, someone adhering to Kant’s theory were to be held captive by ISIS, and his captor said that if he didn’t tell him where the next foot patrol was, or any other information that would lead directly to the deaths of American, NATO or friendly troops, he would be executed, that person would have to divulge that information because he cannot lie, as it is morally unacceptable in every case according to Kant.

With Rossian deontology, the captive could lie and save friendly troops in the process.

Would he be executed? It’s entirely possible, but he would be saving the lives of others, and it’s also possible he could lead the enemy in the wrong direction long enough to allow for a rescue attempt. With Kant, that wouldn’t be possible. It’s important to note the need for special obligations and options attached to Ross’ theory. There are circumstances, I fully believe, that do require making a decision which will cost the lives of few in order to save many, and before it can be said that this sounds an awful lot like act-consequentialism, let me explain. Take, for example, the United States nuclear bombing of Japan. This is a hotly debated issue, and has been since it happened, as to whether it was morally acceptable, and the debate rages on in many

circles.

Prior to the bombing, President Truman consulted his generals, namely General Marshall, the US Army Chief of Staff, and they considered their options. The alternative to bombing Japan was a full-scale mainland invasion, an estimates of the lives that would cost ranged all the way up to 4 million, not including Japanese casualties. Taking all the estimates into consideration, it was very clear that bombing Japan and forcing their surrender would save millions of lives. It’s situations like these, albeit extraordinarily rare, that prove there are circumstances which require the deaths of some in order to save many. It may be that my moral theory is more of a combination of consequentialism, Ross deontology, special obligations and options with virtue ethics. I’m not an expert by any means, and I digress it’s a lot to try to understand, so I hope I’ve properly conveyed everything and the questions posed were answered.