Consequentialism & Utilitarianism: Do the ends justify the means? (Philosophy of Ethics)

In this introductory lecture on the consequentialist philosophy of utilitarianism, professor Galindo provides a discussion on moral reasoning based on the results of an action. This brief review of utilitarianism is from the philosophy of ethics module from professor Galindo's Introduction to Philosophy college course.

*Help Support This Channel*

*Course Textbook*

*Prof G Books*

*For Speaking Engagements*

*Follow Prof G*

[federalisticnewyorkians]

Moral principles are the only absolutes, that and reality exists. From these the basis of ethics are derived. Utilitarianism holds no absolutes and therefore is not even achievable. It cannot be done, you are gauged by how close you get to it. Yet a value that holds the value in no value is not a value in itself.

[ruthlessjv]

Is doing 'good' or 'bad' dependent on the outcome. If there are 5 lifejackets and six people, what would you do? Me, I hope they're a good swimmer.
Can I leave it to the other 5 stranded people to fight for a lifejacket once I have made a stance? Or should I use an oar and push everyone off just in case?
How will they decide. Play 'rock, paper, scissors to vote someone off. Is life preservation a democracy in life threatening situations? It's extreme, however it could happen.
Does that make me a bad person for wanting to survive regardless of means because there is a desired outcome, Being Alive. Will it be seen as good for the people who survive or bad because someone died, what matters the most? The 5 who lived, should they feel guilty for surviving?
As a rule, killing someone is a bad thing to do, however does it make it acceptable if a superhero is doing it in fantasy. Does it make it acceptable for a cop to kill a person innocent or not because they have the right under the policing code to use fatal force if needed? What about life and death struggle against another person attacking you and you kill them, self defence is the minefield to gauge what is murder or manslaughter?
Does morality depend on the context? When is it right to kill? Is it better to put someone to death for a crime or make them spend the rest of their life in jail to suffer? Sometimes death is too easy and does not necessarily give the desired outcome.
What is the outcome? To have never lost someone because of a crime, or to punish someone for it. Death of the criminal will not bring back a loved one. So, what is the ultimate consequence for all given whatever the context. Who defines it? When will we know when it is achieved? What will that feel like given the context?
A discussion across all area's is Happiness. How is it defined? in what context is it defined? It raises the subject of Slavery, as being a necessity to the happiness of the white slave owners who were getting free labour and benefits of humiliating, torturing and murdering Black People. Happiness was Freedom for Black People. Free to live in a Black Skin. Which is still not safe today.
Productivity is the base of capitalism. The more slaves you have to exploit the more productive and available are the product or services you have to sell. White Happiness was dependant on Black Suffering.
Consequentialism and Utilitarianism are intertwined in the complexity of the context of what is right and wrong and what is means for the individual and collective and desired outcome.