The Consequentialist Theory - Essay Example

Identification and Definition of the Terms The consequentialist theory s that the outcomes of a behavior or an action arewhat are used to determine its morality. Meaning, the rightness or wrongness of an action is based on their consequences or aftermaths. According to the consequentialist theorist Jeremy Bentahm, the degree of right and wrong is measured in terms of the utilitarian rule which says that, “action is best that produces the greatest good for the greatest number” (Russell). This means that the criterion of the right is an action that is creating harm to small people and benefitting a larger number of people. For example, “Socrates dissatisfied should have a more moral weight than a pig satisfied”. In relations to this, we also ask this question. Does damage to the trees count compared to the damage on human beings? In this condition the argument is based on ethical community. Even though biodiversity plays an instrumental role in contributing to a perfect human welfare but it carries no intrinsic value meaning that it will have low value in terms of aspects of human welfare. For this reason, the human welfare will outweigh the biodiversity reasoning in case there is a conflict between the two. Non consequential moral theory states that the rightness or wrongness of a conduct is judged according to the satisfaction one gains from the action and not on the consequences. This theory relies on the libertarianism rule which gives people the freedom to do whatever they wish as long as they respect the freedom of others to do the same. In order to make a clear difference on this, it is important to use the same example which asked if damage to the trees count compared to the damage on human beings. In this case biodiversity plays an instrumental role in human welfare but to which extent does it contributes to the expression of individual freedom. That will be our basis of argument when it comes to non-consequentialist moral argument of right and wrong (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012). Absolutist theory is identified as the degree of right and wrong from an objective point of view which should not change according to culture. This is in relation to Kant’s rule under non consequentialist theory. On the other hand, relativism is defined as a view of ethical truth which may vary to personal conviction, cultural characteristic and differing religious beliefs, rules etc. Virtue ethics is defined as the quality of moral excellence, righteousness, and responsibility according to the oxford English dictionary. However, the dictionary of philosophy defines virtue according to the Aristotle’s Philosophy. Aristotle’s Philosophy defines virtue as that state of a thing which constitutes its peculiar excellence and enables it to perform its function well (Thiroux pg 62). For example virtues ethics asks if a right act is the action a virtuous person would do under the same circumstances. Virtue ethics is concerned with the individual character and not so much on the ethical duties and rules with the consequences of the action. This means that virtual ethics explores the extent to which an individual deals with ethical dilemmas. There are several principles under the virtue ethics. One of these principle states that an action is only right if the action would be repeated by a virtuous person under the same circumstances. This leads us to the question about who is a virtuous person. A vinous person is anybody who possesses the moral virtues and follows them. For this reason, virtuous people need to live well. Differences There are a lot of differences between each of these concepts. First, the major difference between the consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories of ethics is that whereas consequentialist relies of the effect of an action in determining its morality, non-consequentialist does not. Instead, to a non-consequentialist, morality is determined by the properties intrinsic to the action. Meaning, to a non-consequentialist, the outcome does not contribute towards the determination of morality. For example, under consequentialism, there is the idea of utilitarianism. Meaning, an action is to be morally right if it produces maximum benefits to the highest number of people. However, this does not apply to the non-consequentialists whose major concern is to act so long as the action is taken as right. There is a difference between a consequentialist and a virtue ethics. To a consequentialist, an action is right provided that its outcomes are desirable and beneficial. However, to a virtue ethics, the morality of an action is purely based on the character of the person in question. For example, when a decision is to be made, it may be considered to be morally right or wrong based on different premises. According to a consequentialist, it is considered to be right if its outcomes are good. However, to a virtue ethics, the goodness f badness of the person qualifies its morality. For example, to a utilitarian, free primary education is moral because it benefits many people. However, to a virtue ethics, it might not be right because it is sponsored by stolen funds. In this case, it is implemented by an immoral mind. Meanwhile, I would like to point out that there is a difference between absolutism and relativism. In the context of an absolutist, an action is morally right if it complies with the universal principles. However, to a relativist, the concept of universal principles does not play a role in determining morality. Instead, they hold that the morality of an action is based on the context in which it was performed. In this case, it implies that a relativist does not believe in the immorality of an action. Since it is determined by the contexts, then the only thing to do is to be tolerant, accept and appreciate other people’s culture. The rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the situation under which it was executed. For instance, to relativist, murder may be moral if permitted by the culture of the person who commits it. However, it is wrong to the absolutists because it is highly condemned by God who is actually the principal source of universal ethics. Bibliography Thiroux, J. P. & Krasemann, K. W. (2012) Ethics Theory and Practice , 11th Ed. London: Pearson. Read More