This week in class we learned the difference between
non-consequentialism and consequentialism. Kant believes in non-consequentialism
which is deciding whether an action is morally right or wrong based on the
morality of the choice but not based on the consequences of the choice. Mill believes in consequentialism which is
deciding whether a choice is morally right or wrong based on the consequences
the choice brings. In consequentialism
the way people determine if the consequences will be considered morally right
or wrong is through felicific calculus. Felicific calculus is a way of measuring
the consequences where they will bring the greatest amount of happiness for the
greatest amount of people, or the least amount of pain for the greatest amount
of people. In class we discussed a
problem where the classroom we were in and the classroom directly next to us
were rigged with bombs. Each of the classrooms had buttons that controlled the
opposite’s bomb. If one of the buttons is pressed it blows up the opposite
classroom and kills everyone in it but if neither buttons are pressed then both
rooms blow up. In consequentialism the answer to the problem would be to press
one of the buttons because the consequence would be that it would save some
lives. However in non-consequentialism the answer would to not press either of
the buttons because killing people is a morally wrong thing to do. I believe that
most people today live with a consequentialism way of thinking. Most people
would press the button to save some lives rather than letting everyone die. I believe that consequentialism is the best
theory for everyday life because the guidelines are laid out in a way that it
benefits the whole. In the classroom example it would do no one good if
everyone died so it benefits the whole if part of the group of people survives.
Living by consequentialism is better than living by non-consequentialism.
If I had to make up my own type of philosophy, I would absolutely have a mix of both consequentialism and non-consequentialism. I don't feel like I can side with either one 100 percent because in some cases the consequences are more important despite the actions, but in other cases the actions are more important. I'm glad that I don't really have to choose between the two because both are relevant in any circumstance.
ReplyDeleteThink about the death penalty. Say there is a murderer being sentenced with the death penalty for killing multiple innocent people. Would it be best to apply the death penalty? Or would it be best just to let him live in the prison system for the remainder of his life? Even though the death penalty would result in the least amount of pain for the most amount of people (the victim's family and friends), would it still be morally right to kill someone when there is a way to punish him and keep him away from the public in the prison system? Making a decision using felicific calculus is not always the most moral thing to do and believing in something just because the majority of people in this day and age believe in it is not a great reason to believe either.
ReplyDelete