In an attempt to argue philosophically, there are certain situations where an individual may end up in confusion on the best choice to make in order to remain morally upright. In this light, various thinkers have come up with lines of thought that make attempts to answer questions that seek to challenge certain choices. In the analysis of a moral dilemma, one is expected to defend the course of action deemed most appropriate by borrowing from the watertight ideologies that would reveal the underlying wisdom. This essay aims at applying the consequentialism moral theory in a hypothetical moral dilemma case.
Consequentialism, a moral theory coined from the word consequences, laws its focus on the outcome of an action (Alexander & Moore, 2016). It argues, therefore, that the action does not matter, whether good or otherwise. As long as the consequences are desirable and aimed at the common good. A consequentialist, thus, has a certain target that helps in determining the course of action without a regard of the shortcomings in the course since the eyes are set on the target. Utilitarianism and hedonism are two pillars elaborate that consequentialism. Utilitarianism, to begin with, advocates that the parameters for consequences should be “greatest good for the greatest number.” The harvest of pleasure and the deterrence of pain, more so, are the pointers that hedonists use to lobby for consequentialism. In both cases, the acts that individuals indulge in do not matter and instead it is the outcome that proves whether the course of action was morally right, especially if it produced the greatest good or pleasure.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Consequentialism, therefore, will find some way around the issue of a policeman shooting a suspected criminal. Tackling crime is the result of his action in line with the parameters of consequentialism (BBC, 2014). The idealists inspired by this school of thought will not care about the loss of human life or the possibility of a fair trial and doing time instead of the shooting. They neither care about the probability that the suspect is innocent requiring a proof of guilt. The reduction and stoppage of crime is the paramount end result and that is all the consequentialists care about. They will applaud the policeman for using the gun for the purpose he is entitled to. The policeman is only doing his duty and taking a life does not make him a murderer in the eyes of the consequentialist.
In the hypothetical case of Mary at the hospital, a consequentialist will argue that she should help the young man. Considering that the young man has been informed that his father has less than a week to live, it is advisable to smother him with a pillow and kill him. The decision is inspired by the understanding that the father has an insurance policy that will expire at midnight. Considering that it is a substantial amount of money, the recognition that the young man and his family would need it for their upkeep reveals that indeed the consequences of ensuring that the father dies before midnight are desirable and therefore the best choice (Alexander & Moore, 2016).
Opponents of consequentialism will argue that it is wrong to resort to killing the father in order to harvest from his insurance policy (BBC, 2014). They will even point out that, at times, the consequences that drive one to act inappropriately are not guaranteed. But in this situation there is a guarantee that the insurance company will pay if the father dies before the expiry of the policy. On the other hand, there is no hope of him recovering from his illness and therefore the young man may end up losing both the father and the money.
Indeed, no good will come from the father living a few more days (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2015). The fact that he is very ill reveals that he is in deep suffering for no good reason since the doctors have given up on his recovery. Extending his life also adds to the agony of his family since they worry for man who is not expected to come home alive. More so, considering that the doctors give him one week at most to live, it is expected that he might die anytime. It would be more agonizing to let him live a while longer, only for him to die sometime after midnight. This affirms that it is inconsiderate to let him live up to midnight.
In conclusion, consequentialism as a moral theory can come in handy when there are certain foreseeable consequences that can be determined by the actions of an individual. Since the focus of this school of thought is on the consequences and not the actions, there is the compulsion to overlook what one does and instead focus on the desirable consequences that enhance the course of action taken. Mary should, therefore, meditate on the basis of consequentialism and help the young man to kill his sick father. This is because there are a number of desirable consequences that are desirable and will be of help to the sick man and his family. To begin with, the father will be relieved of the suffering in the face of imminent death. With this the young man is also relieved of the agony of watching his father as he counts the days. More so, if the man dies before midnight, it is a win-win for him and the family. He had taken the policy in hope that the money would benefit his family and thus if Mary kills him before midnight, he will not have saved for nothing.
References
Alexander, L. & Moore, M. (2016). Deontological Ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
BBC (2014). Consequentialism. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. Consequentialism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/consequentialism/
