Friday, February 27, 2015
Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's are the ultimate basis for any judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Whether we realize it or not, we all usually base our actions on the consequences those actions may bring. We brush our teeth so that we do not get cavities or so that are teeth won't fall out. We lock our doors so that no one can get into our house and steal from us or harm us. No matter how big or how small the action, the consequence of what will happen if we do or do not do it, is in the back of our mind.
Mill’s ethical theory Utilitarianism, which is a form of consequentialism states that the permissibility of actions is determined by examining their outcomes and comparing those outcomes with what would have happened if some other action had been performed. Mill says that a morally good person could in fact, with the best motives, perform an impermissible act. Mill also believes that it is better for happiness to be distributed among many people. So the example used in class was should the people who ow 50% of Americas wealth give it to the poor so that they could experience happiness and escape the conditions they had been living? The moral goal of our actions, he says, is to create “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” There are way more poor people, struggling everyday to make ends meet, than there are wealthy people. So why not just distribute the money to make everyone live in a comfortable way?If it is going to help the majority and bring happiness to the majority, why wouldn't we take that route? How would this be acting morally? Just handing out money to people that haven't worked or earned it does not seem fair or morally right. We are to work for what we have. It is not right to just give free hand outs because you worked hard for a better, privileged life to those who have not. Yes, many poor people work very hard, but not all of them. There are many lazy people out there that just expect to be handed things, how is it morally right for hard working people to just hand out money and a better life to those that just sit around doing nothing for themselves or this world?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We discussed in class at some point on how even though Mill says we must complete actions to promote the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, our choices do not necessarily have to sacrifice our own happiness. For instance the example of the spiritual leaders that had supposedly renounced happiness to truly help others were just indeed receiving gratification and happiness by helping others, so it seems that even when making a decision to help more people we still think about our own happiness with just as much importance.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you on your opinions. I don't believe just handing out wealth is the answer because what does that teach to the lower classes, just sit back and wait for the wealth to come? Now I'm aware that not everyone that is poor is lazy and that everyone from wealth is a hard worker, but as Hunter was saying I think personal happiness helps in the decision to distribute the wealth.
ReplyDelete