Consequentialism

Consequentialism is one of the most significant theories that describe the personal moral frame. Consequentialism is a theory of ethics that judges if an action is right or not based on its consequences. This theory has two examples including hedonism and utilitarianism. Hedonism judges something if its consequences avoid pain or produce pleasure (Andric, 2017). Utilitarianism on the other hand focuses on consequences by the standard of the “greatest good for the greatest number.” I agree with consequentialism because other theories do not ultimately consider one of the most important facts about life. Being alive only provides conscious feeling and the capability of affecting conscious feeling. Any theory neglecting conscious feeling for some non-ultimate ideal is missing the point. Optimal feeling for consciousness is the only valid ultimate goal of all living beings’ actions. The quality of a theory can be measured by its total effect on the conscious feeling of living beings. Justice, honesty, and peace for a world with only non-feeling objects have no value. Consequentialism does not prescribe optimal choices. It only describes characteristics of optimal states of the world and an approximate guide to selecting from options of actions that are already generated.

I believe that we need to generate the best thoughts and actions to achieve that optimal but we do not know how to. So, in the future, it will not be the only optimal ethical theory because other more concrete action selection theories will be used with it. Those theories will fit consequentialism but will be more precise in the details about exactly what to do each second of life. With consequentialism, I can discuss my choices with others, by contacting effective altruism groups like “The Life You Can Save,” or “Giving What We Can,” or the “Centre for Effective Altruism.” Effective Altruism is broadly in line with consequentialism thinking (Heimo & Kimppa, 2020).

As consequentialists, we ought not to eat factory-farmed animal products. Ideally, a consequentialist ought to be vegan, to reduce animal suffering, minimize his or her contribution to climate change (Andric, 2017). This is because consequentialist take every life including that of animals and plants as important. But for a consequentialist, this is not an inflexible principle – it is not like keeping to a specific diet for religious reasons. Instead, we focus on the consequences of their actions. We want to set a good example, but we should not agonize over occasional minor amounts of animal products in their food.

Being a consequentialist means that I take any consequences into account when taking any action. The action should not result in a negative influence on another human being. So being morally correct (this depends on the moral law of a group), demands me to be aware of the moral codes and try to improve the well-being of others within the group (Heimo & Kimppa, 2020). To achieve this I level out excesses so that all among a group gain a moral and perceivable happiness level that creates an optimal deviation of utility. This would look a lot like communism, but all criticism about utilitarian acts and rules are from that same perspective not very wrong. I also question whether the intention of my action is meant to have a positive outcome on others. Then make sure that I control the steps so that the process of act results in such a positive effect on me and others. While it is important to weigh these factors and consider the outcomes they produce, applying consequentialism to daily life requires that I first ask “which life”?

References

Andrić, V. (2017). Objective consequentialism and the rationales of ‘“ought” imply “can”’. Ratio, 30(1), 72-87.

Heimo, O. I., & Kimppa, K. K. (2020). Virtuous Just Consequentialism: Expanding the Idea Moor Gave Us. Societal Challenges in the Smart Society1(1), 35.