The Moral Theory Of Consequentialism

Consequentialism is the moral theory that only the consequences of actions are morally relevant. The action that has the best overall consequences would be considered the most morally right action. While ideas of what good or bad consequences are may be different, that doesn’t change the fundamental idea that the best consequences are the ones that come from the morally right action. Consequentialists must hold themselves to the exact same regard as other people, which disallows them to prioritize themselves over normal people like themselves. Consequentialism is a not correct moral principle because it is too difficult to figure out the consequences of actions compared to other as individuals.
While it is normally difficult to judge the …show more content…
Since that action has the best overall consequence, it would be judged as the most morally right action. However, even though a consequentialist would think that those are the right actions, it goes against normal human morals and rights. In the case of the trolley problem, the consequentialist would pull the trolley and cause the death of one person, understanding that it is morally just to kill one person to save five. However, other people may not want to claim that responsibility of causing the one death. Rather, the death of five people was inevitable, so it can’t be said that it is in the hands of the individual for not pulling the trolley. By pulling the lever, the individual causes a death due to his own hands. Some people wouldn’t want that burden on their hands so they choose to not pull the lever and instead save themselves from the emotional trauma that they would go through for killing the one person. It can’t be said …show more content…
In consequentialist theory, the best way for you to use your income and everything that you gain, is to give it away to someone less fortunate than you are because they will receive more overall benefits for them rather than you. There are some obvious problems there, such as foregoing your own happiness and security in order to supplement others which most people would go against. However, even if you agree with that line of logic, how is it possible to decide which person or group is more unfortunate than the other in order to make the more correct moral decision? It is impossible to figure out what the “greatest beneficial decision” is that will create the greatest consequence is. After the initial issues, some following issues are figuring out afterwards if the consequences are going to happen, or if they can happen in the first