Applying Consequentialist Ethics to the Issue of War on Terror

INTRODUCTION 

I believe that in the war on terror, it is important to stay on the side of morality, and privacy, rather than militarize the country and allow personal freedoms to be invaded for the sake of war. This statement is open for discussion on the consequentialist point of view. Consequentialist ethics have always judged any action to be either good or bad basing on the consequences of the action (Douglas, 2011). Consequentialism as a normative theory is divided into various subtypes like egoism which justifies a deed if it promotes the individual good at the expense of others and altruism which points out that an action is only good if it promotes the wellbeing of many at the expense of self. In this paper, I will focus on consequentialism theories, how they relate to the thesis statement, strengths, and weaknesses on the same. 

BODY 

Consequentialist ethics theory is normative (Douglas, 2011). Like, in this case, the theory will ask; will staying on the side of morality and privacy be justified? Will it be for both quality and quantity happiness for many as the result. Will it create peace and harmony not to militarize the country and allow personal freedom? In both cases, the probable outcome should be weighed. In this case militarization of the country is likely to cause harm. It is also likely to be the most unpopular move among the citizens as it will infringe on their rights in one way or another. Consequentialism would, therefore, take the path of promoting individual privacy, enhancing morality in the society and promote freedom of individual if the state is to win the war on terror. 

John Stuart Mill, a scholar in consequentialism, argues that nature has placed mankind under the sovereign masters of pain and pleasure (David, 2005). Man is ever in the struggle to maximize pleasure and minimize pain in life. The militarization of the state to curb terror is adding salt to the pain the citizens go through. For instance, the weapons deployed on the ground are used by state officers to harass the citizens and deprive them their rights. In other incidences, the weapons are passed in the hands of criminals illegally by some state officers. 

Negative utilitarianism calls for the withdrawal of actions that may lead to consequences that are not good (David, 2005). Withdrawal of militarization in the state is, therefore, necessary. This will minimize the pain the citizens go through. The common good of maximized pleasure will hence be achieved through personal freedom, morality, and privacy. 

Negative utilitarianism bases its strength on this topic by removing the move that will lead to pain at the expense of majority happiness. Though happiness cannot be it will be felt among the states men. 

However, Negative consequentialism comes with a number implications. It has several weaknesses under it. First, it not obvious that the consequences will be predictable (David, 2005). Withdrawal of militarization may lead to increased terror attacks in the country rather than curbing the situation. In this case, even the common good of personal freedom will be interfered with. Secondly, it is self-defeating (David, 2005). Reaching the decision not to militarize the nation may take time. The time wasted on reaching a common decision of not militarizing the country, may make the condition worse for the decision to be effective. This will make the decision self-defeating since the appropriate moment has passed. Thirdly, negative utilitarianism ignores justice. Justice in most countries calls for a well-equipped army and police on the ground to curb terror. However, negative utilitarianism calls for the withdrawal of the same. This is totally against the justice strategies that are in place. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, it is clear from the above discussion that consequentialist ethicists are more interested in the consequences of an action taken to justify it. Consequentialism has subtypes like egoism, altruism and negative consequentialism. In my argument, I have narrowed down to apply and relate the strengths and weaknesses of consequentialism on the thesis statement. 

REFERENCES 

David, O. (2005). Some forms and limits of consequentialism . London. Oxford University Press. 

Douglas, W. (2011). Seven consequentialism . London. Oxford University Press.