Essay Example on Consequential Theory or also known as Consequentialism









To determine whether an act is considered as morally right or wrong referring to the Consequential Theory or also known as Consequentialism we will rely solely on the consequence of the action itself If the outcome of the action is positive then the action is morally right Based on consequentialism we should opt for the action with the best overall consequences and we should always try to promote the best consequences There are numerous types of consequentialism however we will focus mainly on egoistic consequentialism and utilitarianism Egoistic consequentialism is where one only takes into consideration how the consequence of an act will affect oneself or a given group On the other hand utilitarianism only concerns itself with the state of affairs For a utilitarian if an act has value as right or wrong then it can only be derivatively because of the good or bad states of affairs that it produces The fundamental principle of utilitarianism is the principle of utility The principle of utility is the morally right action that produces the best overall consequences in regard to the utility of welfare of all the affected parties Another belief of consequentialism is egoism or particularistic consequentialism Egoism is the view that morality coincides with the self interest of a party whether it is an individual or an organisation 

An egoist is one who determines that the moral value of an action should be founded on the principle of personal benefit For example an action is considered morally right if it helps one s long term interest If it undermines it an action is considered morally wrong While making a business decision to increase the company s profits can be viewed as egoistic however pursuing one s own economic advantage can also increase the well being of society as a whole Those who question the theories of consequentialism are dubbed non consequentialists Non consequentialism is a theory that rejects that the consequences of our acts or of the rules to which those acts conform whether good or bad regulates the rightness or wrongness of our actions The most influential of all non consequentialist approaches is probably Kant s Imperative Theory In his view right actions have moral value only if they re done with a goodwill He believed in goodwill good actions proceed from right intentions and those inspired by a sense of duty Act so as to use humanity whether in your own person or in others always as an end and never merely as a means Kant 1785 In other words we should always act in a way that respects human rationality in others as well as in ourselves 

Another non consequentialist approach is the Prima Facie obligation popularised by Ross Ross 1930 where some duties can be superseded by a more vital obligation in specific situations One of the prima facie duties which is relevant to our present situation is the duty of non maleficence or non injury where it is a person should avoid harming or injuring others physically or psychologically In Rawls view social institutions should not maximise good consequences In short Rawls opposes the idea of utilitarianism as everyone should be treated justly and equally as justice is the first virtue of any institution Rawls 1999 p 3 As for Aristotle he believed that for there to be a virtuous state virtuous acts must be performed In Robert Nozick s Anarchy State and Utopia he believed that utilitarianism justifies the exploitation of other members of the society for the happiness of others No one s happiness should be more important than others Nozick 1974 For Mr Micheal Chong s action to be a morally right act based on consequentialism it must produce a good outcome This is based on the saying the end justifies the means Mizzoni 2009 p 104 If the result of his action important enough he can use any means necessary of achieving it Mr Micheal Chong s action of selling defective wool scarf was a show of egoistic particularistic consequentialism as his only concern was the wellbeing of the company

His action also is considered morally right under the concept of utilitarianism as the wellbeing of the company trumps over the few complaints made by the consumers If he acted against the principles of utilitarianism by recalling the products it would harm a greater number of people Hence under the theories of consequentialism Mr Micheal Chong s act was morally right If we were to view Mr Micheal Chong s actions through a non consequentialist point of view his actions would have been morally wrong as non consequentialist do not concern themselves with the final outcome Non consequentialists are more interested in the act itself Mr Micheal Chong went against his prima facie obligations to the consumers who were injured by the wool scarf when he ignored their complaints whom he owes a duty of non maleficence non injury Those consumers should be treated justly and fairly as they too are a part of the society As predicted by Nozick when utilitarianism is practised the minority are often times exploited As his acts were discriminative and not in goodwill ignoring the consumer s grievances is against the principles of non consequentialism and therefore not morally right In conclusion Mr Micheal Chong s action is considered morally right based on the principles of consequentialism but morally wrong to a non consequentialist

Write and Proofread Your Essay
With Noplag Writing Assistance App

Plagiarism Checker

Spell Checker

Virtual Writing Assistant

Grammar Checker

Citation Assistance

Smart Online Editor

Start Writing Now

Start Writing like a PRO