Non Consequentialism

The installation of a moral system is vital in every society. Yet, every moral system must

deal with the major conflicting general moral issues: Consequentialism versus

Non-consequentialism; Self versus Other-Interestedness; Act Utilitarianism versus Rule

Utilitarianism; and Emotion versus reason. When all four areas are combined and examined

there are conflicting views that must be resolved.

First of all, there is the issue of Consequentialism and Non-consequentialism.

Consequentialism is best described by utilitarianism, where decisions are based on the

consequences of the outcome of the decision made. On the other hand, non-consequentialism

is best described as an ethical theory that is based not on the consequences of the

action,
but on some higher moral standard that is placed upon them. Examples of

non-consequentialism are Kant's Duty Ethics and Divine Command Theory. The conflict

between the two is whether to do what is best according to the outcome or follow what one

feels as the higher moral standard would require them to adhere to.
Personally, I would

resolve this area by choosing the consequentialist belief as my tool for judgement

because I feel that people need to think about the consequences of their actions because

if they don't then it will cause havoc in the society. Thus, I feel that consequentialism

is the proper solution in this area.

Secondly, there is the conflict between Self versus Other-Interestedness. The concept of

self is best described as being selfish and only caring about oneself without worrying

about what might happen to others. While the concept of other-interestedness is basically

putting the needs of everyone else over your own (this is similar to utilitarianism). The

big conflict is that most people are going to choose themselves first, but if this were a

perfect society the people would worry about everyone first. If people would think about

it, then they figure it out that they are included in everyone. Therefore, in this area I

would solve the problem by choosing the theory of other-interestedness.

Next, there is the issue of the act utilitarianism versus the rule utilitarianism.
The

act approach to utilitarianism is that a person should perform acts that will bring about

the greatest good for the greatest number. On the other hand, the rule approach to

utilitarianism is that people establish and follow rules which will bring about the

greatest good for the greatest number.
The major conflicting moral issue is whether or

not there is freedom involved in the decision making process. Act utilitarianism gives

unlimited freedom, while rule utilitarianism gives virtually no freedom, but rule

utilitarianism gives structure and stability to the society. The best way to solve this

area would be to have rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism combined so that you

have rules to give some structure to society but have the ability for the people to be

allowed to express their individual freedoms in the society. Thus, I feel that a

combination of the two is the best way solve this area of the moral system.

Finally, there is the issue between reason and emotion. Reason is described as thinking

about what the outcome of the decision would be, then making the decision. The theory of

emotion is reacting to one's emotions without thinking about the possible outcome of the

situation. In this situation one has to side with reason because if not the society would

have people reacting to their emotions all the time which could chaos and would not fit

into a utopian society.

All of these four areas combined would help in establish an upright and proper
moral

system when applied correctly. I feel that the decisions that I made earlier in this

essay are the proper ones needed for a good moral system.