Are Consequences the only Thing to Consider?

Are Consequences the Only Thing to Consider?

Theories of ethical and moral development are based upon the society and time in which the philosophers believe that they are able to change the world and make their mark on people’s lives through their values and ideas. Not always will a philosopher’s ideas meet the standards to withhold the challenges that people or society as a whole will challenge them with. The Utilitarian theory looks at the consequences of a particular action and determines the morality based upon the amount of happiness everyone will experience because of that action. That criterion for the basis of morality is not enough. Even after making changes to the theory that created the Rule-Utilitarian theory, still the overall concept of judging actions based on more criteria is not addressed to its fullest potential. The action itself needs to be taken into account to truly determine the overall morality of an action as a whole. Thus, while determining the rights and wrongs of a moral theory one should take into consideration and focus on the consequences like the Utilitarian theory suggests, but also take into consideration and focus on the many other factors that reach one to make the decision and how it affects the people around oneself.

The Utilitarian theory was not based on religion or strict set of rules, but was based on the concept of happiness. “Morality is about making the world as happy as possible” (Rachels, 90). The way to go about making a decision using the Utilitarian theory is to look at the consequences. The question that is to be asked to determine whether an action is right or wrong is: Do the consequences result in the maximum amount of happiness for everyone involved? This however should not be the only thing to consider. If the action to a decision goes about using the minimum amount of happiness involved

There is only one guideline to the Utilitarian theory and that is called the Principle of Utility. “This principle requires us to always choose whatever action or social policy would have the best consequences for everyone concerned” (Rachels, 90). Therefore in order to make moral decisions, one should look at each of the different outcomes and choose the one that creates the maximum amount of happiness compared to the ones that don’t create the maximum amount of happiness. There is more involved in making a morally right or wrong decisions, and the Utilitarian theory does not even touch on those elements. There are various factors that can contribute to a person’s reasoning to make a decision and various actions that take place in order to reach that decision. Whether they are good or bad, morally right or wrong, are just as important as the actions that result in making them. But the Utilitarian theory does not even address those concerns.

There are many arguments that defend the idea that the consequences are not the only thing that matters in determining whether an action is right or wrong. One of these arguments is the concept that the theory is incompatible with the idea of justice. This argument basically argues the fact that the Utilitarian theory looks at a situation and only look at what and who it will benefit. The example that Rachels uses is one that involves bearing false witness where the end outcome may result in the execution of another. When the consequences of bearing false witness produce the maximum amount of happiness then it is considered to be morally right and it would be morally wrong to minimize happiness also. Justice is available to people in order to monitor and to step in to take control for people who have their rights violated or are disrespected. Justice allows the equal treatment for everyone. Without justice people would constantly have their happiness constantly minimized. But at the same time Utilitarian theory does not look at that concept, the bigger picture.

Along with the idea of justice that the Utilitarian theory does not include, it also does not include the idea that people have basic rights that enable justice to be the power player that it is. People have rights that need to be protected under any circumstance. People value their basic rights and are constantly making them a priority on their list. Then why doesn’t the Utilitarian theory take this into consideration? Rights are put into effect in order for each person to receive the same respect and protection as the next person. The Utilitarian theory does not look at the big picture when considering a decision to be morally right or wrong. “Utilitarianism says that the actions are defensible if they produce a favorable balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Rachels). Take for example, a situation where Man A breaks the law such as stealing a video from Man B, but Man B never knows who does it. Man B’s happiness is being minimized and according to the Utilitarian theory this would be morally wrong, but Man A’s happiness is maximized more than Man B’s is minimized. The maximum amount of happiness is produced in favor of Man A because he is being selfish. Man B’s rights are not being respected or upheld.

One of the major issues with this theory is that it looks to what could and may happen, but is not guaranteed. Looking to the future, we cannot always predict what will happen for definite. “Because of its exclusive concern with consequences, Utilitarianism confines our attention to what will happen as a result of our actions” (Rachels, 106). That is why the backward-looking reasons is an argument that has good reasoning to back up its case and also prove my theory that you cannot only look at the consequences. Since Utilitarian theory only looks at the future and not what was made in the past, things such as a promise or a commitment to something/someone, things that provide that maximum amount of happiness are limited. Take for example a situation where you make a prior arrangement with your best friend to babysit their children. Now you have made a commitment to someone and in any other situation this would be morally right to keep this arrangement that you have made, your best friend is counting on you to be there for her. But when the day comes that you promised your best friend that you would be there, you feel that you have better things to do such as school work and don’t want to babysit anymore. You use the Utilitarian theory and maximize your happiness the morally right thing to do would be to cancel. In extreme circumstances such as a family emergency this would be understandable and morally justified, but these are the circumstances. The Utilitarian theory forgets the fact that canceling on your best friend would be inappropriate

...