The Theory of Consequentialism

Well hello there my readers, and welcome to yet another glimpse of my mind. My apologies for the recent lack in posts, however I’ve been quite busy with school, exams, projects, and the like. However at the moment, I’m sitting in my English class, bored out of my mind, and I’ve decided that rather than listening to my teacher talk on and on about Macbeth and the various allusions and sub textual references found in Shakespeare’s work, I shall use this opportunity to reincarnate my blog from under the mountain of forgotten IB homework. Now what I’d like to talk about today is a subject we should all be familiar with by now, the recent rioting and revolting occurring in the Arab nations. Nowadays, we only need to turn on the television or pick up a newspaper (for those of us who still possess the patience and mental capacity to actually read) to hear about the stories of violence and uncertainty concerning the governance of many Arab states, all in the name of better government. As we see, the people of these nations hold the perspective of Machiavellianism, in that they believe that in terms of governments, the ends (of achieving a better, fairer government) justify the means used to achieve it (in this case, the violence in the streets). I however would like to approach this scenario, not just in terms of Machiavellianism, which was originally derived to deal purely in terms of governments, but in terms of the Theory of Consequentialism as a whole. Now, I could support or refute the Theory of Consequentialism through using examples dealing with the revolts and uncertainty in the Arab nations, but we’ve all heard far too much about that already. Instead, lets forego discussing the war, let’s discuss the theory of consequentialism utilizing something we can all relate to, namely being the issue of relationships and whether the Theory of Consequentialism can be applied to relationships as well.

To discuss the Theory of Consequentialism, I’d like to bring up the poem In Memoriam A.H.H. by Alfred Tennyson, and for those of you who have no idea what I’m talking about, perhaps you’ll recognize one of the most famous quotes in history, “Tis better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.” Now while this quote in the poem is referring to the loss of a friend, I’d like to extend it’s meaning to refer to the loss of something more than a friend, something akin to the loss of a lover. So you, my readers may be questioning how this quote relates in any way to the Theory of Consequentialism, and I’d be happy to clarify how the two are related in my mind. Speaking strictly of relationships, Tennyson agrees with the Theory of Consequentialism, in that he believes the ends (the relationship) are justified by the means (the time and effort put into attaining said relationship). Now, while this is a noble idea, I cannot say that I am in full agreement with Tennyson’s stance on such matters. Personally, I am of the belief that only some ends justify some means, that the potential for loss must be weighed against the time and effort required to attain a relationship, and should former outweigh the latter, the relationship should be foregone. We must factor in the quality of the relationship as well, in that while Tennyson believes that it is always better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all, I believe that the quality of the relationship must be factored into the scenario as well, for instance, I’d rather have never loved at all, than to have loved for…say, merely a week. So I cannot say that I agree with Tennyson, nor with the Theory of Consequentialism in that I believe the effort required to acquire and maintain a relationship must be weighed against the potential for loss and the quality of the relationship, or in broader terms, the means must be weighed against the ends to decide whether we are justified or not. Now I realize that may sound quite utilitarian of me, but don’t get me wrong, I do not believe in utilitarianism, I do not believe that killing 500 people to save 501 people is justified, that’s not what I’m saying at all, my viewpoint is just that only some means are justified in some ends, and I chose to use a lighthearted example to refute the Theory of Consequentialism. Of course we could start talking about wars and riots and how the means of using brutality to quell uprisings are not justified by the ends of achieving stability within a nation or region, but being in English class, and half-listening to the dark thoughts of Macbeth and his obviously dominant wife in their plots to kill the king, I thought I’d take a lighthearted approach to the question of “do the ends justify the means?” Now while I’ve shared my thoughts on the subject, I’m genuinely curious of your thoughts, do the ends always justify the means? Never justify the means? Only sometimes justify the means? Or do you hold the utilitarian view in that as long as the ends achieved outweigh the means used to achieve them, we’re justified in the means we use to achieve them. So my readers, feel free to share your thoughts, or if you wish to reprimand me for not really paying attention to my teacher, feel free to do that as well, but either way share your thoughts, provide me with a glimpse into the inner workings of the complex individuals I’m sure you all must be, and until next time, and hopefully a more concise post, I bid you adieu.