Is Consequentialism a Good Theory?

Is Consequentialism a Good Theory

Consequentialism is an ethical theory which dictates that actions are to be judged solely based on the consequences it brought about, which is basically saying that the end justifies the means.

Mozi, an ancient Chinese philosopher states that "It is the business of the benevolent man to seek to promote what is beneficial to the world and to eliminate what is harmful, and to provide a model for the world. What benefits he will carry out; what does not benefit men he will leave alone." The sentence really sums up Mohist consequentialism, also known as states consequentialism.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Mohist consequentialism, dating back to the 5th century BCE, is the "world's earliest form of consequentialism. The basic benefits in Mohist consequentialism are wealth and the increase in population. This form of consequentialism focus more on achieving the group's happiness and pleasure instead of gaining individual happiness. However, as time progresses, people are starting to aim for personal well-being as they use consequentialism to guide them in their everyday choice-making processes.

There are several benefits of consequentialism, with the direct one being that it indeed helps humans to gain happiness. Happiness is something every individual wants to achieve in life, some might even say that it is the reason for existence in the first place. Using consequentialism to help one make decisions in life will lead to him (in normal circumstances) getting more happiness. One simple example: Tom is a consequentialist. He knows that studying will lead to good grades. With good grades, there will be recognition given to him from his earners and parents. And this will lead to him being happy and pleased with himself. Thus, there will be motivation to study hard and become happy. On a second level, consequentialism often leads to people doing things that are deemed "right" by the society, because only through doing things that are correct can we get recognition, which the largest happiness source.

The danger of consequentialism, however, is that the consequences that we foresee might not be the actual result of the actions we undertake. For example: Tom lied to his Mom about his science quiz result because telling her the truth would make her unhappy. The action of lying is supposed to lead to both Tom and his Mother being happy. ( Mother because she did not know Tom failed the quiz and thought he was doing fine. Tom because lying to his Mom about the result would prevent his Mother from scolding him.) However, what if Tom's plan failed and his Mother discovers that he had been lying. It would lead to a even bigger confrontation between the two. From the scenario above, it is safe to conclude that one downside of consequentialism is that sometimes, we cannot know for sure if a certain action or choice made would definitely lead to happiness/ hood results.

Consequentialism is very similar to utilitarianism, in which both theories require the person to take whatever actions necessary to achieve the desired result. An opposing theory, the formula of humanity as proposed by Kant suggests that humanity is an end in itself. Going by the principals of this theory, we cannot use humans as a means to achieve our desired ends. In the situations that require as to use humans as a means to achieve our end, the formula of humanity would disallow it. However, there are too many situations in life that require us to ( at least partially ) use humans as a means. For example: Tom needs to go to the hairdresser to cut his hair short. Using hairdresser as a means? Tom needs to go to the doctor's. Using the doctor as a means? I would say that applying the theory to the real world is not a very big help as it probably brings more guilt for us since we are almost constantly using humans as a means. Some might argue that going to the hairdresser or doctor does not mean we are one hundred percent using them as means, but then where do you put the line between means and end?

It is difficult to say for sure whether one theory is better than the other. But when it comes to making good decisions, I would say that consequentialism is a better theory to guide us in our thinking. Both consequentialism and the formula of humanity has its pros and cons when it comes to moral reasoning. For consequentialist, we might have doubts whether the actions they are undertaking to achieve their happiness is moral? For supporters of Kant, people sometimes feel that they have a too idealistic worldview. How is it even possible, living in this universe, not to at times use humans as a means? Truth is, it is impossible. Consequentialism is easier to apply to real life than the formula of humanity, which is a certain indication that it is a good theory.

Sorry for the stumbles and grammar errors! A mistake : it is the actions we take to achieve our “goals” not”actions”. The end (sorry for not being able to finish 😂): it is unfair to say that consequentialism is better then formula of humanity but it is certainly a lot more accessible and popular than the latter.