Nonconsequentialist Theories

In America, the gap between the have and the have-nots seems to be widening.

Doesn’t that mean there’s a lot more wealth to go round? Or is it good news for the rich

but very bad news for the poor? Filmmaker Alex Gibney depicts an uneasy coexistence

of wealth and poverty along one New York City thoroughfare; in his latest film titled

“Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream”. 740 Park Avenue is one of the

most exclusive addresses in the world, home to some of the richest Americans, the 1%

of the 1%. Ten minutes to the north, across the Harlem River, is the other Park Avenue,

in the South Bronx. Here, unemployment runs at 19% and half the population need food

stamps. Is their consequences for this imbalance in wealth and are the rules governing

inequality moral?

Rule Nonconsequentialist is basically described as a theory of morality that

suggests what is fair is fair; and that you cannot apply morality to the consequences that

ensues when on follows the rules (Thiroux, Krasemann.) So, who makes the rules and

allows oversight for those to be held accountable? We know that America is a

capitalistic society and that the tax codes favor land, business owners, and

entrepreneurs. So, my question is why is the social welfare of the low class being

ignored; in favor of a game of chess over a cup of coffee. The big theme that

overshadows the consciousness of America is the “American Dream” with a white picket

fence tag that gets placed over America’s head.

Yes, it is a known fact that you can come from nothing and make it big in

America. But, at what point do we consider how the welfare of America is calculated.

Brad Hooker a British American philosopher who specializes in moral philosophy

explains that; “welfare is calculated by counting a benefit or harm to any one individual

the same as the same size benefit or harm to any other individual, and then adding all

the benefits and harms together to reach an aggregate sum”. Although, there is much

debate and dispute over this notion I still believe it to holds much truth. You must always

count the cost of an action or rule that is handed down by ranking elite; as in making

sure that the foundation upon which the rule was established gives way to the social

welfare of others.

The theory of morality we can call full rule consequentialism selects rules solely

in terms of the goodness of their consequences and then claims that these rules

determine which kinds of acts are morally wrong. George Berkeley was arguably the

first Rule Consequentialist. He wrote, “In framing the general laws of nature, it is

granted we must be entirely guided by the public good”. We have seen that rule

consequentialism evaluates rules on the basis of the expected value of their acceptance

by the overwhelming majority. So, how do we move forward as a society and begin to

move these old mindsets off the scene and rebuild a moral society?

In the Preamble of the Constitution we are told that one of the reasons the U. S.

Constitution was set up was to promote the general welfare of the people. So, what

form of action should be taken to make sure that this preamble gets reestablished; not

as a crutch but as a means of teaching others how to maintain their equilibrium

throughout life. I would assume that this makes much sense as a moral rule in which

seeks to help the poor; by providing them a platform on which to build their future. The

Divine Command Theory states that morality is based not upon the consequences of

actions or rules, or upon self interest or other interestedness, but rather upon something

“higher” than these mere mundane events of the imperfect human or natural worlds.

So, why are we to question the definition of “Act Nonconsequentialist” which

makes the major assumption that there are no general moral rules or theories at all, but

only particular actions, situations and people about which we cannot generalize. Is

there some supreme higher power that is controlling both sides of the fence? The

difference between act and rule consequentialist seems to hinge on the fact that they

are not based on consequences; and that a divine authority sets in motion the rules that

are to be. But, today in society this isn’t accepted by the mainstream populace due in

part to the suffering that happens to be taking place all across the world.

I am a firm believer that a divine presence is always relevant in the affairs of

man; through leading and guiding them to build a more productive society. So, the

issues and problems that we face in society today are definitely consequences of our

own actions; and not some divine power throwing favors on one and not the other. In

the Christian world we like to say that “favor isn’t fair”; as a metaphor to not judge what

the “higher power” does in certain people’s lives. We have to look at the overall picture

and how all things related to one another. In this 21st century tectonic shift the poverty of

Bangladesh will definitely have consequences in America if we can’t make the

distinction and begin to provide solutions to these issues.

Sources:

Downing, Lisa, "George Berkeley", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition),

Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

Ethics : theory and practice/ Jacques P. Thiroux with Kieth W. Krasemann – 11th

ed. Pg. 49

Ethics : theory and practice/ Jacques P. Thiroux with Kieth W. Krasemann – 11th

ed. Pg. 47

Hooker, Brad, "Rule Consequentialism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition),

Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

Learntheconstitution/social-welfare.html