Consequentialism Vs Utilitarianism

Affirmative actions are the ‘social programs’ that help many individuals that were mistreated in the past in the form of injustice and inequality. These programs help them to recover with what all they went through in the past. Especially they were more helpful for the poor people, African-Americans and other disadvantaged minorities including women that were treated unfairly due to their differences such as their ‘age’ and ‘sex.’ To this, some people had argued that simple justice is requiring for the people, but some people also had argued that these programs are unjust since simple justice compels us to treat everyone equally. These affirmative programs have helped many people to get into the colleges or schools and to get their match jobs. The arguments that are for and against the various types of affirmative action are
These arguments are raised in two different approaches, which are consequentialist and non-consequentialist. Consequentialist is considered utilitarianism and the non-consequentialist as deontology that differs in their views.
Consequentialism is all about the ‘actions of consequences,’ which are based on justification. The people that favored affirmative action for consequences, for them it works until it produces the greatest happiness for the largest number of individuals. ‘Utilitarianism and Egoism’ are both forms of consequentialist. Utilitarianism is defined as the ‘principle of utility or the greatest happiness principle,’ which means that utilitarianism is based on consequences of the actions and always produces the greatest happiness for the more significant number of people. If the actions are wrong, it can also provide the reverse happiness for people meaning it could also harm them. The example that we have seen about utilitarian was about ‘trolley problem,’ where five workers were working on one track and only one worker on the other