Consequentialism( Who is right or wrong?)

    When it comes to Consequentialism we all have something in common. Wether one is a man woman or child or even an animal, we are all consequentialists. When you touch fire you get burned as a consequence, and you learn to not touch it again. If you hear that terrorists are bombing planes, you would not neccesarily want to travel by that mean of transportation. There are always actions and reactions to everything that goes on around the world and I am going to mention a few just to support my statement.

     Chris Kyle was an American Navy seal that risked his life to go on tour to Iraq to save the lives of fellow soldiers and protect america. He did his job and he made harsh decisions such as killing anything that was a threat possibly including women and children. One morally could not do such a thing, but yet these threats had to be eliminated. He got rid of them so that they would not harm others, this can be see as the lesser of the two evils. Of course taking a life is evil, but those lives decapitate the heads of prisoners of war, blow innocent civilians up, and more horrendous things that you could not possibly dream of.

   Now some consequences are just uncalled for, Another sad current event was that of the jordanian pilot who was captured and then burned alive. The ISIS millitants starved the pilot for five days and then poured gasoline on the pilot, put him in a cage like an animal, set him on fire, and they recorded the horror with an HD video camera that was so high quality that it could be used for a film. As a matter of fact the video was 28 minutes much like a short film. Since they are at war, the consequence for the pilot was being set ablaze.

  This leads me to the conclusion about which consequentialist is right or wrong. Both sides have opposing views but which is better, and which is morally correct? Killing hundreds of people or burning one man alive? Ill leave that up to you.