A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

Consequentialism on its own appears to be a very good theory. I often make decisions in terms of satisfying the highest number of people involved. For example, if a group of people were deciding on whether or not they should purchase hamburgers or hotdogs for an events at work and I were part of the group, I would say that the majority vote rules because then the highest number of people are being satisfied. I do not do this in every scenario, but I do it often enough to make it a trusted theory of mine. The reason I said it was a good theory on its own is because when matched against deontology it seems a bit selfish and narrow. Deontology and consequentialism differ because deontology deals with morals, regardless of whether or not the outcome is favorable, whereas consequentialism seeks to satisfy the most people and allows them to define the morality of the situation.

For example, if a group of my peers were walking around downtown and became thirsty, shortly after realizing that only one of us had his wallet on him, consequentialism would determine that the person with the wallet pay for the drinks if the majority agreed. This is because the outcome for the majority of us is favorable, and we are determining that the outcome is moral, even if they one paying for the drinks doesn’t think so.

Even though I often side with consequentialism, I must say that it lacks a solid foundation when dealing with unique circumstances. What if the best outcome is one that is looked down upon by everyone else accept those benefiting from it? Does this not make it unethical or immoral? I feel that there will be times where selfishness and personal agenda will drive the decisions and moral compasses of others. According to ethical egoism, a subdivision of consequentialism, lying, stealing, and even killing would be morally permissible as long as the agent benefited and was not caught. This clashes with traditional moral intuitions because those who believe in this theory would agree that personal interests should count for something (Consequentialism, 2001).

I think that finding a balance between the two may not work for everyone, but it does for me. I find myself siding with consequentialism much more than deontology but feel that much of my decisions are driven by what I feel is right and wrong, often coinciding with the morals and values of the others affected by the outcome.

References:

Consequentialism (2001). Retrieved from http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/Consequentialism_link.html