Nonconsequential and Consequentialist Theories of Morality, Essay Example

Everyday society is challenged to make decisions about moral and ethical value. There are many ways that individual’s approach these decisions, such as peer-pressure, religion, and even the best personal outcome. However, when one is challenged with an ethical decision that involves the life of one, or the life of all, it becomes far more difficult. Analyzing the position of the nonconsequential and consequential theories of morality will aid in making a decision regarding life and death. Having been stranded on a lifeboat with eleven other people, the challenge it to determine whether to sacrifice one to save ten or forgo none where everyone would most likely perish. Based on the theories of morality, the decision of this paper would be to follow a consequentialist approach, which would be the greatest good for the majority.

First, it is important to examine the theory that was not chosen. The issue at hand is whether the most ethical approach is to sacrifice one or eleven. The nonconsequential theory bases the value of right or wrong on an action based on properties essential to the action, not the consequences. Kant has perhaps one of the most influential nonconsequentialist approaches. “In his view, right actions have moral value only if they are done with a good will – for duty’s sake alone” (Nonconsequentialist, 2011). The first version states that something can be considered moral if you can say that an action is moral is if can apply to all people. In the case of the lifeboat, sacrificing the one man would not be considered a moral action towards all people. The outcome of employing this theory would be that all people on the lifeboat would most likely die.

The option chosen was the consequentialist approach. The consequentialist theory of morality bases the rightness or wrongness of any action on the consequences the action had. Jeremy Bentham of utilitarianism states, “that action is best that produces the greatest good for the greatest number” (Holsinger, 2015). Eleven people are trapped on a lifeboat in freezing water that is deadly. The lifeboat only has a limited capacity, and when that capacity it violated, it threatens everyone involved. No one has made the personal decision to exit the boat, and if a decision is not made, all eleven people will die. The decision was to push out the 400-pound man to save everyone else in the boat. The action achieved the greater good for the majority. The greater good of the majority could not be obtained by allowing all eleven people to remain on the boat while it continued to sink.

Based on the theories of morality, the decision of this paper would be to follow a consequentialist approach, which would be the greatest good for the majority. It is a very controversial decision because it is difficult to take one life in efforts to save everyone else. However, based on the consequentialist theory of morality, actions are justified and moral if they produce a good for the majority. In this case, the majority of the people on the boat survived because of the sacrifice of one. The morality and ethical position can be highly controversial, but it is no easier to justify sacrificing eleven people instead of one. The remaining eleven individuals were given a chance to survive, because of the consequentialist approach.

References

Holsinger, K. (2015). Consequentialist vs. non-consequentialist theories of ethics. Darwin.eeb.uconn.edu. Retrieved 13 December 2015, from http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture-notes/value-ethics/node3.html

Nonconsequentialist. (2011). Doing Ethics: W. W. Norton StudySpace. Retrieved 13 December 2015, from http://www.wwnorton.com/college/phil/ethics3/welcome.aspx