Michael Sandel's 'Consequentialist Moral Reasoning'

In his speech, Professor Michael Sandel discussed both “consequentialist moral reasoning” and “categorical moral reasoning” (Harvard University, n.d.). Sandel states that “categorical moral reasoning” is when you “locate morality in certain duties and rights” (Harvard University, n.d.). And “consequentialist moral reasoning” is when you “locate morality from consequences of your actions” (Harvard University, n.d.). Basically, “categorical moral reasoning” focuses on the “consequences”, after “action” is taken, before you actually do something (Harvard University, n.d.). Then, there’s “consequentialist moral reasoning” focuses on what to do, and the “consequences” afterwards (Harvard University, n.d.). “Consequentialist moral reasoning” tends
to focus on the “greater good for the greater number” (Harvard University, n.d.). “Categorical moral reasoning” means that one is looking for the better good for the majority (Harvard University, n.d.).
I believe that this type of reasoning is better than “consequentialist moral reasoning” (Harvard University, n.d.). Because it focuses on the consequences afterward, and not just the circumstances now. For example, “categorical moral reasoning” would be saving five lives, and killing one (Harvard University, n.d.). And “consequentialist moral reasoning” would be thinking in the moment and not long term (Harvard University, n.d.). In other words, “categorical moral reasoning” is known to be “the right thing to do, because it maximizes utility”, makes the majority happy (Harvard University,
n.d.). Although, “categorical moral reasoning” makes the majority happy, it fails to make everyone happy (Harvard University, n.d.).
I believe that in most cases, “categorical” should be chosen over “consequentialist” (Harvard University, n.d.). Sometimes, going against the law can have the better outcome than obeying by the law can, and this could save more lives. I believe that there are some laws that deserved to be broken, and breaking them will result in the greater good for the majority. But, that depends on the law being broken. For example, if there are five people in a burning building, the better option would be to save as many as possible, even if you can’t save them all. I believe that having at least one person satisfied is better than zero. More importantly, what kind of world would we live in if we just let everyone die, instead of saving at least one person? So I believe that the “moral thing to do depends on the consequence(s) of an action” (Harvard University, n.d.). For instance, President Barack Obama is planning on letting over three million immigrants stay in the U.S. This is causing a great amount of controversy, and maybe be breaking a few laws in the process, but it will be for the greater good. This will reunite families and they will be able to find
employment. If I were in the scenario that Professor Michael Sandel mentioned I would kill one person, rather than five. Also, I would care for the five patients, instead of the one. This is “categorical moral reasoning”, because I’m focusing on the “greater good for the majority” (Harvard University, n.d.). If I were to save one life, there would be “five” people dead, so that would be morally wrong (Harvard University, n.d.). If I had the choice, I would save everyone, but if I had to choose, I would choose to kill the least amount of people. Also, I wouldn’t take the “organs” from the one person “sleeping” (Harvard University, n.d.). I wouldn’t because it would be “morally” wrong, but I would ask if he/she would donate them (Harvard University, n.d.).