-In your own words, describe the primary difference between consequentialist and non-consequentialist approaches to ethics. -Choose one of the major theories associated with consequentialism: what objections might be made to this theory? -Choose one of the major theories associated with non-consequentialism: what objections might be made to this theory? It has to have at least 1 (one) SCHOLARLY REFERENCE , including CITATIONS and Reference list.
The primary difference between consequentialist and non-consequentialist approaches to ethics lies in their respective focus on the consequences of actions and the inherent moral value of the actions themselves. Consequentialist ethics, also known as teleological ethics, prioritize the outcomes or consequences of actions as the basis for determining their ethical value. On the other hand, non-consequentialist ethics, also referred to as deontological ethics, place importance on the inherent moral value of the actions themselves, irrespective of their outcomes.
Consequentialist ethics holds that the morality of an action is derived from its consequences. According to this approach, an action is considered morally right or wrong based on the amount of overall happiness or utility it produces for the greatest number of people. This form of ethics is often associated with utilitarianism, which states that actions are morally right if they maximize overall happiness or well-being and minimize suffering. For example, if lying in a particular situation leads to a positive outcome that brings about more happiness and less suffering overall, a consequentialist would consider lying to be morally acceptable.
However, consequentialist ethics has faced various objections. One objection commonly raised against consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism, is the challenge of determining what constitutes “good” consequences. Critics argue that there is no universally agreed-upon definition of happiness or well-being, making it difficult to measure and compare the consequences of different actions. Furthermore, consequentialism may lead to morally reprehensible actions if they produce favorable consequences. For instance, in a hypothetical scenario, if torturing one person leads to preventing a greater calamity, a consequentialist would argue that the action is morally justified because of the positive outcome, even though it involves extreme suffering.
Non-consequentialist ethics, on the other hand, asserts that certain actions possess intrinsic moral value and are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. Non-consequentialist approaches emphasize ethical principles or rules that should guide decision-making, rather than focusing solely on outcomes. A prominent non-consequentialist theory is deontology, which centers on the idea that individuals have ethical duties that should be followed irrespective of the consequences. Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative is an influential deontological principle that states that individuals should act in a way that can be universally rationalized without contradiction. For example, telling the truth is inherently morally right according to deontological ethics, regardless of the consequences that may arise from being honest.
Nevertheless, objections can be made against non-consequentialist ethics as well. One criticism often raised is the lack of flexibility in applying fixed ethical rules or principles to various situations. Critics argue that adhering strictly to moral rules can lead to moral dilemmas where multiple principles conflict with each other, making it challenging to determine the morally right course of action. Additionally, non-consequentialist ethics may be accused of disregarding the importance of outcomes and focusing solely on the intentions behind actions.
In conclusion, consequentialist and non-consequentialist approaches to ethics differ primarily in their focus on the consequences of actions and the inherent moral value of the actions themselves. Consequentialist ethics places significance on the outcomes or consequences of actions, while non-consequentialist ethics emphasizes the inherent moral value of the actions themselves. Both approaches have faced objections, with consequentialism being criticized for the challenges in determining “good” consequences and for potentially justifying morally reprehensible actions, while non-consequentialist ethics has been questioned for its inflexibility and potential neglect of outcomes.