A major statement in the book mentions that “ The rightness of an action depends entirely on the effects of that action (or of following the rule that governs it). Good effects make the deed right; bad effects make the deed wrong.” His statement falls in line with c onsequentialism which focuses solely on the outcome of an action rather than the motive or intention behind it. Furthermore, it indicates that the extent of good consequences produced as a result of an action qualify it as desirable. The implication from the statement is that when confronted with a n ethical dilemma, the best course of action should focus on maximizing good eff e ct s without considering the morality behind the action. Maximizing human welfare often presents with an aspect of rational and well-versed inclinations . In practice , individuals overlook the importance of assess ing the moral implications of each and every act ion as it consumes valuable time. In its place they apply ethical guidelines that stem from making considerations on the overall outcomes of certain types of actions . F or instance, dishonesty is considered wrong due to the know ledge that more often than not, dishonesty yields undesirable consequences.
The general thinking behind the statement is on results-oriented reasoning behind every decision. In effect, it renders all actions justifiable so long as they produce better result s that alternative courses of action. It appears reasonable to use results as the basis of ethics in society thus requiring individuals to consider the outcomes of their actions beforehand . In turn, it offers flexibility on action s that can be taken in any situation regardless of the difficulties presented therein. All one has to do is consider the degree of moral good arising from a particular action in comparison to other alternatives and make a choice . As such, persons must thoroughly examine the outcome s of their actions as it will guide them towards making an ethically acceptable choice . However, it may slow down the decision-making process, an aspect that may produce undesired consequences. Some philosophical assertions regarding the aforementioned statement present a line of thinking in that it would result to a greater extent of societal mutual trust . In fact, m ost people would consider all ac t ions under the same magnitude of scrutiny to ensure the maximum positive outcome. The resulting bias or predisposition towards achieving positive outcomes strongly impacts moral choices for the better as compared to using fixed rules on all actions and situations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, Kant asserts that actions done by persons, under morally questionable grounds, remain wrong regardless of whether they yield good consequences or not. Through this claim, Kant emphasizes on the indispensable need for considerations on the moral grounds of every single action done regardless of the setting or circumstances presented. The claim focuses on the need for examining the common perceptions regarding moral conduct, thus highlighting the moral grounds for informing ethical decision-making among human beings. Remarkably, it eliminates a good outcome as the justification of an action and instead relies on personal good will and bearing a moral sense of duty. Using the analysis of the concepts of duty as well as good will, Kant insists that personal autonomy depends on morality. Therefore, making a decision requires one to have good will and feeling of being obliged to do the right thing.
Unlike in the concept of relying entirely on the effects of an action to determine its rightness, the aspect of good will focuses on having a predetermined way of doing things as per the norms of societal expectations. For instance, regardless of the results, killing an innocent person, whether it promises better outcomes for the society, remains unethical as long as the rule against murder is upheld. Although it is agreeable that causes play a part in influencing various actions, the concept of good will upholds the premise that the level of autonomy provided by morality by-passes the effect of causality. In effect, it means that while causes may possibly have a direct effect in instigate a given set of circumstances, the upholding the standards of morality justify the chosen course of action. Additionally, much stress is laid on the fact that the nature of a given person’s character bears insignificant implication on the situation but rather, the inspiration in following moral choices depends on the sense of duty. From a thoughtful understanding of the implication of good will, it becomes apparent that the critical factor involves upholding a personal resolution that is contingent on the necessity of having all resolutions falling in conformity to the dictates of morality. Non-material things such as pleasure, intellect, and happiness entirely come to be of importance and worth possessing if acquired through a moral process. The drive to acquire such things ought not to influence a person to laying down the critical moral principles upheld in daily life. As such, it appears that no outcome or consequence bears sufficient worth to permit the concession of a person’s moral and position.
Drawing from a comprehensive look into the two sides, the idea of upholding good will overrules the results of an action. For instance, in a situation where an individual carries out an action in pursuit of own selfish ends and satisfaction, the component of good will is fundamentally eliminated. The absence of sincere moral inclination in the deed, irrespective of how laudable the results, eliminates the principle of good will. Such an action only bears good results while totally disregarding morality especially where the motivation falls short of a moral basis. Therefore, genuine actions demand a strong basis on moral conformity as opposed to focusing solely on results.
