Theme Of Consequentialism In Macbeth

When thinking about ethics the most common definition would be the behavior for distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable actions. Ethics refer more to rules from an outside source, morals however, are a test of one's individual principles regarding right and wrong. When judging morality, consequentialism is the belief that the goodness of an action should only be determined by the end result. Consequentialism is a good test of one's moral compass by viewing how one sees their personal gain versus the steps took achieve the goal. The most common saying relating to consequentialism is “the ends justify the means” saying that it does not matter how one would achieve his goals as long as he gets there eventually. This statement

is very controversial in many different situations and is a major topic in philosophy. Although many people believe that in life the ends justify the means, it is actually quite the contrary, through many experiences in government, everyday life, and even human nature this is disproved.
Throughout everyday life there are examples of consequentialism scattered almost anywhere. A good way to look at consequentialism is as if one was raising a child, if the child is misbehaving or do something that one would not condone then the end goal is to prevent them from doing that in the future. According to consequentialist ideas then it is justifiable to any means necessary to stop the child from misbehaving, such as physical abuse. If hitting the child stops them from continuing their wrongdoing then the actions are overlooked. These events however have been proven to be unsuccessful in the long run by planting a fear in the child that could lead to greater psychological problems down the road. The actions leading up to the end cannot be overlooked because the only reason the goal was met was due to the before steps. If instead of using physical abuse to prevent the child from acting out, one decided to talk to them about why what they did was wrong and to not do it again, they would reach the same end goal without having to defy one’s morals. End goals are the driving force of consequentialism and can be seen as a standard even in governmental affairs.
Morality and consequentialism also come up a lot in the discussion of government. The duty of the people running the country and making tough decisions is often questioned by the citizens living there. Some tough decisions are very controversial and involve the public deeply bringing out a mass spectrum of opinions. For example, nearing the end of World War II president Truman was faced with a choice. He pondered using the newly developed atomic bomb to force Japan to surrender thus ending the war. His decision was final, and the US dropped the bombs in Japan killing around 200,000 people in the act (Cheek 2). This event had ended the war, as the goal had been overall, which in the eyes of consequentialism is acceptable. It is hard to believe an event of this magnitude can be overlooked just by the fact that the war ended. 200,000 civilian lives were brutally taken for the greater good and overlooked. This event was unacceptable, the weight that this tragedy carried should not be seen as justified. The ends did not outweigh the deaths of innocent people even though it resulted in the war concluding. The use of inhumane weapons and killing goes against all human morality and even human nature.
Morality and human nature often go hand in hand, the things people do are often related to the gains or goodness that come to them or those around them. The main principle of consequentialism however, is to formulate all decisions by viewing the overall consequences. Although, that way of viewing life is inhuman and immoral (Haines 3). If one only makes decisions by calculating the overall outcome, it is not natural. Utilitarianism is the belief that actions are correct if they benefit the majority, or produce the most utility (Nagel 4). Utilitarian views often coincide with consequentialist goals by disregarding wrong actions from a good result. For example, “If we were required to maximize utility, then we would have to make very different choices in many areas of our lives. The requirement to maximize utility, thus, strikes many people as too demanding because it interferes with the personal decisions that most of us feel should be left up to the individual” (Sinnott-Armstrong 7). If humans were required to think about every action before they carry it out, it would be impossible. It is arguably a violation of human rights by interfering with people's personal decisions and thinking.
Of those who support the idea of consequentialism one of the most common claims is that in the end, only results remain. For instance, “Actions are transient things, soon gone forever. Hence, one might think, in the long run only the results remain, so the only thing that really matters about an action is its results. So consequentialism must be true” (Haines 2). This quote is a very valid point in the opposition and it is true that nothing is forever. Nonetheless in the long run, not even results exist. When viewing consequences from a longer perspective, they pass just as quickly as actions. By saying only results matter, then things such as happiness or sorrow would not matter at all because nothing is forever. Life from a consequentialist perspective seems that life does not matter at all because the consequence is death. This perspective on life is depressing and not healthy because it is saying there is no point to living. As a result, this shows how consequentialism is flawed by the mindset it portrays to humans.

Examples of consequentialism also exist in some of the most famous and common literature ever written.

In William Shakespeare's Macbeth, we can see the theme of consequentiality scattered throughout the play. The most pivotal moment in the play regarding consequentialist ideas would have to be when Macbeth murders king Duncan in order to grasp the throne. Macbeth had achieved his goal of becoming king, thus for a while he overlooked the means he took to take the throne. Not too long after Macbeth defied his morals to achieve his goal he started to think deeply about what he did. Macbeth began to not being able to sleep, become depressed, and even started experiencing hallucinations. Macbeth had followed consequentialist ideals to benefit himself, and it had worked for him in the beginning. However in the long run Macbeth's actions caught up to him and ended up ruining his life by driving deep into his conscience. This murder caused him to feel remorse by going against his fundamental human morals. This is a prime example of consequentialism not succeeding in its attempts, a consequentialist would believe that if Macbeth was a better king than Duncan, then him murdering Duncan would be justified. This is not how the world works, by committing morally wrong actions for personal gain or even the greater good does not justify the

actions.
In life, the belief that consequentialist ideas and practices will lead to a better society, and higher thinking is false. Through many past experiences pertaining to morality issues and even human nature consequentialism has failed. The reasons consequences are met is solely the purpose of the actions used to achieve the ends. Overlooking actions would be like saying it is not important to live because the end is always death. Furthermore in higher powers such as government, we can not use consequentialist or utilitarian ideas because it brings about much conflict in the public and even around the world. By continuing to avoid the idea that the ends justify the means, the phenomenon of morality remains intact to better humanity.