Are ethical actions valued by their natural aspect without qualification? Are ethical actions said to ethical, simply because they are morally accepted because of the results of actions? There are many ethical theories which have attempted to explain what actually is moral and what is amoral in the society.
This rule requires one to act in accordance to ones expected, if the action was directed to the actor. Therefore humans based on their ability to empathize, determines the ethical system has to be followed. But Immanuel Kant claims good will, is good regardless of the results of its action. He held that what makes a person good is his possession of the will that in a certain way makes decisions based on the moral law.
What then guides the actions of humans? Rules are used in choosing the right actions based on the expected consequences which has to agree with the existing rules (Bales, 1968). In this situation the established rules are the bases which are used to determine if an action is right or wrong. According to utilitarianism, an action is right if it maximizes utility (Bredeson, Dean (2011). The right way therefore to determine the moral value of an action is based on the consequences of the actions. The natural consequences is the ultimate measure to be used not when everyone did the same but consideration of what can happen if everyone did the same. In this scenario then, a particular act and tendency is considered.
However, are the rules completely independent and superior to the good will possessed by the agent? The answer is definitely negative. This is because the rules are established solely to operate on certain situations and based on the evaluation of the agent who determines the course of the action. It is therefore the motivation that determines the action and hence the results. Kant argues that if a shopkeeper does not overcharge a child so as not to offend the child, doing so although duty bound, it has to abide by the moral laws.
Duty cannot determine the morality alone because it can lead to impulsive and negative results; therefore there exist values in action other than the consequences of an action. Mill on duty motivation holds (Act Utilitarianism) that an act is right as long as its results for happiness are as good as any other existing alternative, while rule Utilitarianism, an act is good as long it conforms to rules which are accepted for happiness as great as any other existing alternative rule to the agent.
Kant is opposed to this approach and indicates that dutiful actions do not express good will and the conformity of agents’ action to duty is related to the agents’ will by accident. Therefore if one is motivated by his own happiness alone, then, if conditions of his work did not conform to this, he would not have done his duty (Kurt Mosser, 2008). We owe a duty to rationality by virtue of being rational agents; therefore, rational moral principles apply to all rational agents at all times (Johnson, Robert, 2008). There is however a challenge on how the intentions and the results of such intentions can be completely in conformity. Intentions are entirely determined by the agents own consideration whereas the acts, though guided by the intentions may affect other parties whose independent intents and expectations guides the interpretation of the results of the actions of the intentions.
Bentham (1776) held that “it is the greatest happiness, of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong”. In order to regulate our election among various proposed actions, or to determine the greatest moral excellency, the degree of happiness expected to proceed from an action, the virtue is as the quantity of happiness or is in compound ratio of the quantity of good and the number of enjoyers, while the moral evil is as a degree of misery and the number of sufferer and thus an action is best if it procures greatest happiness for the greatest numbers and likewise, if it occasions misery.
It is however immoral to sacrifice an individual or a small group of people only because the acts justify the happiness of the majority. For example it would be wrong to detain few members of a society to please the majority without due cause. Even if the act produces the greatest happiness, the minorities’ happiness should not be compromised. If two individuals Mike and Jane perform a certain act whose expected outcome was good, but due to unexpected circumstances Mike fails, it then, does not mean that Mike is wrong or unethical.
Mill proofs the utilitarianism by explaining how we proof other existing things. He explains that sound is audible; if it can be heard by people and that an object is visible, if it can actually be seen and hence a desirable thing can be evidenced by people desiring it. Therefore there is no possible reason that explains why general happiness is desired except if each person believes it is attainable and hence desires his own happiness. If then, happiness is good to each person; general happiness is good to the aggregate of all the people. This proofs that it is only the consequences of the action that determines its value. However, there is a burden of determining all the possible outcomes of action in order to determine the rightfulness of wrongfulness of an act.
Although there exist distinct differences as to whether actions are good without qualification, it is evident that using consequences as the determinant of an ethical action is superior. Based on the fact that, utilitarianism advocates for the results of an action to judge its moral uprightness, it is the most possible approach practically. Considering that humans’ interests are driven by two masters- happiness (pleasure) and pain, acts and results of the acts, are thus conceived in accordance to the agents end desires of gaining happiness and hence such acts are so guided. In any situation, a rational human being shall strive to be maximally happy all the time.
The desire for happiness of the majority is most of important aspect that can be used to judge the morality of an action as per the results of the action. What this means is that, an act must be guided in such a way that the consequences causes maximum happiness and minimal pain to the majority. This is the basic guide to democracy.
The good of the greater majority is superior to that of the minority and hence actions must seek to achieve this which shall lead to happier people than those in pain. If a driver avoids hitting one person and causes a more fatal accident killing many people, the driver, based on the consequences, shall be said to be morally wrong notwithstanding the right of the single person. This indicates the superiority of the consequences of an action other than the intention of the agent.
Based on the fact that an intention in itself as conceived in the agents systems of thought is virtual in nature and can only be actualized through action and consequences make the latter more appropriate to determine an ethical action. The intentions of the agent hence are anticipatory and without consideration of the consequences, then the intentions can be presumed inexistence or worthless. In actual sense, what guides an intention is the consequence of the intention.
This means the intention is attached to an act which is attached to a particular consequence and hence, the consequence which is more practical is the only way to be certainly sure of the morality of the action/intent. Having an intention to steal and due to some circumstances either internal or external fails to happen, due to lack of action and consequences then, the intent may be presumed inconsequential.
However, Mills’ theory can be almost an impossible to apply it regardless of it been possibly the most practical. The reason is because there is a challenge of predicting all the possible consequences of an action and also all the alternatives to such actions. Utilitarianism is a theory which is also based on one direction; the results of the actions are oblivious of the history that leads to the actions and consequently the results. However a theory can be correct even if it seems unusable.
But at what point is the intention separate from the action and hence the consequences? Any ethical act has a basis on the intention in the agents system of thoughts. Although the intention can be completely separate from the action and hence the consequences, the action and consequences cannot in any way be separate from the intentions.
It is therefore true to say that there is a relationship between the intentions and the actions’ consequences and the two can be considered in determination of ethical action.in most case, if the intent is good, good for the majority, and that it is based on the existing rules, the consequences of the action, shall also be ethical and acceptable.
References
Bayles, M. D., ed. (1968) Contemporary Utilitarianism, Anchor Books, Doubleday p.1
Bentham, Jeremy (2001). The Works of Jeremy Bentham: Published under the Superintendence
of His Executor, John Bowring. Volume 1. Adamant Media Corporation.
Bredeson, Dean (2011). "Utilitarianism vs. Dentological Ethics". Applied Business Ethics: A
Skills-Based Approach. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0-538-45398-1.
Kurt Mosser (2008.) Necessity and Possibility: The Logical Structure of Kant's Critique of
Pure Reason. Catholic Univ of America.
Mill, Stuart and Crisp, Roger. eds. (1998) Utilitarianism. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
Johnson, Robert "Kant's Moral Philosophy"(2008). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Retrieved 11 December 2013.
