Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Consequential Ist Utility Maximization - 1,722 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

... concerned with utility maximization as any good consequential ist, is personally responsible for how he evaluates each particular situation. If, through a mis evaluation of the situation, he performs actions that produce a very bad state of affairs, he cannot say "I was just following orders. " The de ontologist may insist that the rule-of-thumb-utilitarian can always say "oh well, I tried my best, " but the de ontologist who produces bad states of affairs can clearly say the same thing - in fact, the ability to shrug off negative consequences so long as one's motives or intentions were pure is one of the luxuries commonly associated with de ontological ethics. To the consequential ist, it would seem that it is de ontological ethics that frees one from personal responsibility, not consequential ist ethics. To (c), the consequential ist responds in the same way as the did to (b) - there are grounds independent of one's ethical system from which guilt springs, and from which the consequential ist might perhaps even encourage guilt to spring so as to discourage other consequentialist's from being lax with their calculations.

The consequential ist, no less than the de ontologist, is concerned with doing the right thing, even if he has a different analysis of what the right thing is. And once again, if the consequential ist can shrug off disastrous results that result from following his moral calculus, the de ontologist can certainly shrug off disastrous results that result from following his rules - in fact (once again) this ability is even more pronounced for the de ontologist, since it is with actions, and not consequences, that the de ontologist is concerned. The accidental performing of an act with disastrously wrong consequences could easily be more morally damaging to the consequential ist, who cares about results, than to the de ontologist, who cares about motivations. Our hypothetical de ontologist claims that consequential ism absolves its adherents of all personal responsibility for three presumed reasons: (a) consequential ism removes all personal decision, as the consequential ist simply turns himself into a "slave of utility maximization"; (b) consequential ism allows an agent to rationalize away atrocities such as the injury of one person for the benefit of the many; (c) consequential ism allows one to shrug off disastrous states of affairs that are brought about when one's consequential ist moral calculus advises a course of action that turns out to be wrong. To reason (a), one may respond that if the consequential ist makes himself a "slave of utility maximization, " then the de ontologist makes himself a slave of a set of rules. Is there any a priori reason why a commitment to utility maximization should be morally inferior to a commitment to a set of absolutist rules?

It does not seem that there is, unless one begs the question by approaching it from a de ontological viewpoint. For reason (a) to stand would necessitate an indisputable argument showing a non-consequential ist system of ethics to be the right system, as Kant tries to formulate - but judging from the depth of controversy in moral philosophy today, it seems rather doubtful that such an argument exists. Reason (a) also ignores the existence of rule-of-thumb-utilitarianism, in which the element of personal decision certainly is present. The rule-of-thumb-utilitarian has no grand moral calculator to churn out a spreadsheet commanding him to a certain course of action, nor does he have a set of inflexible rules to constrain him to a single course of action, as the de ontologist does.

The rule-of-thumb-utilitarian consults the collective utilitarian wisdom of the centuries, but the ultimate decision as to what course of action he takes - even while remaining within the framework of consequential ism - is the agent's personal responsibility. To reason (b), one may respond that the consequential ist believes the sacrifice of one for the benefit of the many to sometimes be the morally correct thing to do - the consequential ist would no doubt argue that the ethical systems of consequential ism's de ontological critics allow an agent to rationalize away the atrocity of not injuring one person for the greater good. Briefly speaking, the exact nature of an "atrocity" is a matter of perspective. Granting this, the de ontologist may reply that, indeed, one person must sometimes be sacrificed for the greater good, but that at least the de ontologist will recognize the sacrifice of the one person to be morally distasteful, whereas the consequential ist will simply drop the ax on the poor man and go merrily along his way.

But such an objection is not without problems. In the first place, if we mean by "morally distasteful" that the action should evoke a sense of guilt in the perpetrator, then there is no reason to assume that the consequential ist, simply in virtue of his system of ethics, will not find his actions morally distasteful. Even if the consequential ist believes that he is "right" to choose the lesser of two evils, what is to prevent him from inwardly longing for a non-existent third alternative that makes everyone happy? There are clearly independent psychological grounds from which guilt springs, such that a person can believe what he did to be right - given the options available to him at the time - yet nevertheless suffer nightmares due to a plagued conscience.

It is not clear that an agent must even be in part a de ontologist for this to happen to him. But if by "morally distasteful" we mean that the action is in fact not right, how are we to say this in any meaningful way? In the first place, it seems silly to presume that given two actions, one of which is better than the other, and better than doing nothing at all, that performing that action is wrong - even if it is conducive to guilt. Secondly, to insist steadfastly upon this position would amount to question-begging, as it starts off with the assumption that the de ontological notion of rightness and wrongness. It is especially simple to see that consequential ism does not imply a sacrifice of responsibility when one considers rule-of-thumb-utilitarians once again.

The rule-of-thumb-utilitarian, while as much concerned with utility maximization as any good consequential ist, is personally responsible for how he evaluates each particular situation. If, through a mis evaluation of the situation, he performs actions that produce a very bad state of affairs, he cannot say "I was just following orders. " The de ontologist may insist that the rule-of-thumb-utilitarian can always say "oh well, I tried my best, " but the de ontologist who produces bad states of affairs can clearly say the same thing - in fact, the ability to shrug off negative consequences so long as one's motives or intentions were pure is one of the luxuries commonly associated with de ontological ethics. To the consequential ist, it would seem that it is de ontological ethics that frees one from personal responsibility, not consequential ist ethics. To (c), the consequential ist responds in the same way as the did to (b) - there are grounds independent of one's ethical system from which guilt springs, and from which the consequential ist might perhaps even encourage guilt to spring so as to discourage other consequentialist's from being lax with their calculations. The consequential ist, no less than the de ontologist, is concerned with doing the right thing, even if he has a different analysis of what the right thing is. And once again, if the consequential ist can shrug off disastrous results that result from following his moral calculus, the de ontologist can certainly shrug off disastrous results that result from following his rules - in fact (once again) this ability is even more pronounced for the de ontologist, since it is with actions, and not consequences, that the de ontologist is concerned.

The accidental performing of an act with disastrously wrong consequences could easily be more morally damaging to the consequential ist, who cares about results, than to the de ontologist, who cares about motivations It has been established that devotion to a consequential ist system of ethics does not necessarily entail a shunting of personal responsibility onto a moral calculus of utility. The question remains whether those who choose consequential ism in fact do so in order to avoid personal responsibility. The answer to this question is very brief: there is no reason to assume that consequentialist's wish to avoid responsibility. Rather, it is clear that many choose a consequential ist system of ethics because they perceive it to be the right one. Such people may well view deontology as blind "rule worship" - as the blatant discarding of personal responsibility of which the de ontologist accuses the consequential ist. For those who assert that consequentialist's make themselves into unthinking, mechanical extensions of the principle of utility maximization, there is the response that the deontologist's make themselves simple mechanical extensions of a set of perhaps arbitrary rules.

If someone adopts a system of ethics in order to absolve himself of moral responsibility, then that person is reprehensible on almost every account. Granted, such a person could fit into a consequential ist scheme (excluding rule-of-thumb-utilitarianism) quite well, but he could fit into a de ontological system equally well. Throwing around charges about which system the irresponsible flock to is pointless. As J. J. C.

Smart points out, "it may well be that there is no ethical system which appeals to all people, or even to the same person in different moods", and no doubt it is also the case that consequentialist's and deontologist's can each be sincere in believing their system to embody "goodness and niceness" and the other's to embody "evilness and rottenness." In this light, assertions by deontologist's about consequentialist's denying their true moral obligations by voluntarily becoming extensions of some impersonal calculus, are seen to be without merit. We can say that the principle of utility maximization and the rules of de ontological ethics can each be employed to absolve oneself of personal responsibility, but that people operating within both frameworks are likely to be trying their utmost to be decent, moral human beings. Sources: 1. Stephen Darwall, ed. , Consequentialism (Blackwell 2003) 2. Stephen Darwall, ed. , Deontology (Blackwell 2003)


Free research essays on topics related to: consequential ist, personal responsibility, utility maximization, de ontological, negative consequences

Research essay sample on Consequential Ist Utility Maximization

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com