Consequentialism Act Utilitarianism

Consequentialists are a group of philosophers who asses whether an act is right or wrong based on the consequences of the action. There are different types of consequentialism including: ethical egoism, act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. These three branches of consequentialism will be discussed later in this paper. A supererogatory act is something that is good but is not obligatory; these acts involve rendering aid to others that go above moral requirement. Consequentialists claim that there are no supererogatory acts; an act either produces the most pleasure and is therefore morally good, or it brings about pain and is morally bad. This claim is challenged by universalists, who argue that since there are no supererogatory acts,
Actions are evaluated in terms of the good consequences generated relative to the agent. It is the only consideration relevant to determining whether or not an action is right or wrong. Utilitarianism, like ethical egoism, holds that we ought to do what has the best consequences, however utilitarians believe that the scope of relevant consequences is much broader. Egoist count only their own well-being, while utilitarians count the well-being of everyone. Utilitarianism is egalitarian in that it believes that everyone’s wellbeing is equal; no one persons’ well being is above anyone else’s. Also, utilitarians are impartial; moral reasons for actions are agent-neutral. This means that to utilitarians, the person conducting the action does not affect whether the action is considered morally good. Finally, the basis of utilitarianism is the principle of utility, which states that every action whatsoever, is approved or disapproved according to the tendency which is appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interests is in question. The principle of utility consists of two parts. The first being that we are to maximize a certain value; to bring about as much as possible. Second, is that the value-theory substantive account of intrinsic value, the value we ought to be maximizing or
Supererogatory acts do not exist for utilitarians, therefore either a decision is right or wrong, there is no going above expected moral duty because it is expected that someone performs the act which brings about the most good, not the act which is most convenient for the agent. For example, say I wanted to buy my sister a birthday present. If in doing so, I don’t generate the greatest amount of happiness possible, what I have done is morally wrong according to utilitarianism. If the money I spent on a present for my sister could be better spent helping children who are starving, for example, then I am morally obligated to do so. This conflicts with our conventional idea of morality. There are very few people who believe that I would be committing a morally wrong act by spending money on my sister instead of donating to kids who are dying of hunger. However, just because it conflicts with conventional morality, does not make the theory wrong. It would be nice if I donated to kids who are in need, however, I am under no moral obligation to do so. Donating the money would be considered a supererogatory act to conventional morality. According to utilitarianism, on the other hand, this is false; there is no such thing as a supererogatory act, just right and wrong. I am therefore required to give the money to kids in need.
On the other hand, if, on my way to university, I saw a baby