An Objection to Act Consequentialism
Act Consequentialism is the view that whether a certain act is morally right or wrong is determined only by its consequences. Different branches of consequentialism use different qualifiers to judge those consequences. Here, act consequentialism will be defined as judging the outcomes of an act based on whether or not they bring about the maximum good. It follows that the most morally right act is the one that brings about the most good. In this paper, I will argue that act consequentialism is a flawed moral framework which, though seemingly strong in theory, lacks practical application in the real world and fails to properly respond to objections regarding satisfaction of the individual.
A common objection to act consequentialism as a moral framework is that it demands too much of the individual. Consider a man named James who has earned $100 and wishes to spend it on a new pair of shoes to replace a pair that is full of holes which cause him minor discomfort. He could spend the money on a new pair of shoes, and improve his own wellbeing slightly, or …show more content…
Act consequentialism is the framework most broadly applied to real world policy making, and these policies often take the form of law. In our society, breaking the law is punishable. If these laws are founded on the consequentialist idea that the right and therefore legal thing to do is the thing that benefits the most people, then surely in some cases the thing that does the least good and is therefore morally wrong should also be punishable. But, if a suggested revision to the rigidity of act consequentialism is that the morally wrong acts should not be punished then the framework seems to fail in this practical application of lawmaking. Law and policy writing cannot be based on merely what one ought to
Act Consequentialism is the view that whether a certain act is morally right or wrong is determined only by its consequences. Different branches of consequentialism use different qualifiers to judge those consequences. Here, act consequentialism will be defined as judging the outcomes of an act based on whether or not they bring about the maximum good. It follows that the most morally right act is the one that brings about the most good. In this paper, I will argue that act consequentialism is a flawed moral framework which, though seemingly strong in theory, lacks practical application in the real world and fails to properly respond to objections regarding satisfaction of the individual.
A common objection to act consequentialism as a moral framework is that it demands too much of the individual. Consider a man named James who has earned $100 and wishes to spend it on a new pair of shoes to replace a pair that is full of holes which cause him minor discomfort. He could spend the money on a new pair of shoes, and improve his own wellbeing slightly, or …show more content…
Act consequentialism is the framework most broadly applied to real world policy making, and these policies often take the form of law. In our society, breaking the law is punishable. If these laws are founded on the consequentialist idea that the right and therefore legal thing to do is the thing that benefits the most people, then surely in some cases the thing that does the least good and is therefore morally wrong should also be punishable. But, if a suggested revision to the rigidity of act consequentialism is that the morally wrong acts should not be punished then the framework seems to fail in this practical application of lawmaking. Law and policy writing cannot be based on merely what one ought to