This article is titled "Against Moral Conservation"
According to Kai Nielsen, the consequentialism theory of ethics appears to have a monstrous implication that may make it morally unstable based on what people invest themselves in. Kai advises against all sorts of consequentialism (Eric 2007). Individuals should abandon consequentialism in favor of conservatism or moral absolution.
The Definition of Conservatism
The author defines conservatism as a normative ethical framework that, to some extent, contains a favored cluster of moral principles. People should be more concerned about conservatism since it is ethically correct and has values that are not restrictive of what is expected of them. On the other hand, consequentialism is more restricting and can lead to horrible things. Consequentialism is driven by some principles that can lead to terrible things when they are done. Adhering to some principles of consequentialism is such a restriction and may not follow the moral ethic.
Kai's Argument Against Consequentialism
Despite Kai being able to outline his claim on both consequentialism and Conservatism by giving his arguments and support on what should be followed as being morally correct of a person, he also defends the principle that may require taking some actions where one may lose his or her life in saving many. I argue that Kai is correct to some extent from how he gives his argument on good conservations that killing an innocent person is morally monstrous. This makes it unjustified and morally unacceptable consequence.
Summary
Kai states that consequentialism maintains that moral principles, policies, actions, and rules are to be judged at one point by certain results. Judgment is never evitable regardless of how it is done. One can carry out these actions, policies or rules by doing them at least, or more than but there is still judgment at the end. The states of these affairs that should be sought are those that are useful in maximizing these things to as much as possible to the greater extent (210). These may sound humane if the implications are sought through, however, this is a forceful argument because when it is reasoned, it will be found out that they are morally intolerable and inhumane. Kai further outlines that at some extent when a solution to a problem has not been found before the problem becomes a worry to many people, there are situations where people are framed. This will deliberately harm an innocent person. Such a consequence based on moral uprightness is unacceptable because the framed person may be tortured, punished, or even killed for what he or she has not done. Nielsen urges that it is an open question whether an action of framing an innocent person procured before the judicial execution should be excluded from consideration. From what the author asserts, he thinks this kind of issues does not even need an argument because it is not a right act. People involved in such shows having a corrupt mind which is something that is not considered as being morally upright when it comes to ethnicity. Kai does not support any of these principles that do not consider an innocent person from being convicted from what they have not done (217). To explain the principle of not taking someone's life or convicting someone falsely for what they have not done, Kai uses an example of the fat innocent man to elaborate his point of view. The story of the innocent fat man gives a unique idea on what should be done, and one can also have their reasoning or arguments on the same. The fat man getting stuck in the cave’s mouth is by accident because he did not opt for that to happen. It is unfortunate that there is a high tide coming that will kill those inside the cave, or they should blast the fat man with the dynamite to save themselves. From the conservative point of view, it is clearly outlined that killing an innocent person is wrong yet at this stage, it is either one life of the fat innocent man or the rest drown. According to Nielsen, he argues that a moral man should come to a conclusion of blasting the innocent fat man to save many (Peggy 2012). This story shows that our real reactions should be questioned along with a principle that outlines that a direct intention of killing an innocent individual is never justified. The author reasons that under such situations things might be different and therefore there is a need for considering a lot of factors before taking immediate action. Like in the status of the fat innocent man, we need to beware of our moral outrage under such a situation. Under a situation like this, consequentialism seems to have a strong case than that presented by conservative reactions. In such a case Kai shows the consequentialism as a moral radicalism which indeed it is based on how one can think of this kind of situation. The author further supports the principle of not killing someone by giving another story that presents different reasoning concerning conservative reactions and consequentialist. He gives the story of the Magistrate and the threatening mob. Kai introduces the story as a magistrate finding himself in a very real threat from an angry mob who are demanding a culprit for having committed a particular crime. Unless the criminal is arrested and executed the crowd will take their vengeance on a vulnerable section of a smaller community. Even though the judge knows very well that the culprit is unknown by the authority, and due to the pressure to save the small, vulnerable community he has an idea. Framing an innocent person from the crime that is under consideration may help settle the crowd, and the judge opts for this. The framed individual is convicted and executed. Framing and execution of an innocent man are totally unacceptable, but others would argue that it is categorically wrong. This kind of problem based on what the author has been stressing from his elaborations is another case that remains a problem to the consequentialist. The author also reasons that one can continue to be a consequentialist and can also continue to accept moral convictions of common sense when it comes to such matters (336). Kai is very precise on how he presents his arguments in demonstrating this principle of life taking. He is trying to get out the implication of his stories whether thinking through should lead a morally sensitive and bright-headed person not to take keen consideration of consequentialism or adopting some form of deontological absolution.
Critique
I completely agree with Kai Nielsen in how he explains the principle that protects human life. From how he puts his two stories in elaborating the concepts of consequentialist and conservative, it explains what is morally upright and how various situations can be handled. Even though life is valued and no one should have the privilege of taking someone's life, there are some circumstances that this can be exempted based on elaborations of Kai. Under situations where there is a need for doing some things for greater good, it might be right when consequentialist is considered. Like in Kai's story of the innocent fat man, it is either his life or the life of many. It is, therefore, the duty of his fellow who is trapped in the cave to take moral action. Blasting the fat man will kill him, and his fellow will survive. This according to the conservative is incorrect and inhuman but based on consequentialist it is considered a matter of common sense because it is the life of one for many. I do not mean to agree with killing or framing someone, but under some circumstances, this might be a solution to a better course. Life is very precious and that I second. No one is expected to go against the law of nature by taking some measure into their hands but Kai is right, and from how he elaborates this principle I find myself giving a second thought to when it comes to the greater good.
Conclusion
To sum up, while Kai makes an explicit elaboration on conservative and consequentialist based on what is expected to be as morally right, not everyone can find these arguments convincing. Consequentialist illustrates that there is no difference from doing a large or more monstrous activity (John 2014). Morality theory is a priori but based on Kai from his elaborations it will not render or even refute implausible consequentialism. What might undermine the moral argument from such a claim concerning the priority nature of presumably ethical and moral theory is not true. Saying that moral theory is a being a priori is correct in case it means that original moral statements under no circumstances can be deducted from no moral theological statements. Finally, conservatism being identified as a normative ethical theory makes it maintain a free moral principle that prescribes and determines actions that are wrong and should not be acted upon regardless of the consequences. The key example of a principle related to conservatism is the claim that killing an innocent human is wrong. This is the primary difference that differentiates conservatism from consequentialism.
Works Cited
Blumenson, Eric. "Killing in Good Conscience: What's Wrong with Sunstein and Vermeule's Lesser Evil Argument for Capital Punishment and Other Human Rights Violations?." New Criminal Law Review: In International and Interdisciplinary Journal 10.2 (2007): 210-238.
DesAutels, Peggy. "Moral perception and responsiveness." Journal of Social Philosophy 43.3 (2012): 334-346.
Welch, John R. "Working with Moral Means." Moral Strata. Springer International Publishing, 2014. 95-131.
