Impartiality and Consequentialism

From guest blogger, Alexander.

After learning about multiple theories to address and combat moral issues, I feel that consequentialism is not an accurate measurement of morality. On paper, the “maximization of total aggregate happiness” sounds great. However, it ends up screwing the non-happy portion. The first idea that I do not agree with is impartiality, that all beings are counted as equal. As great as this sounds, a lizard’s happiness is nowhere near equal to a human being’s. A consequentialist might say that happiness is a measure that should account for all beings on earth, but I don’t think that’s remotely true. For this theory, I believe human happiness should be above all else. Obviously, there would need to be exceptions to immoral cases like animal cruelty for this addition to benefit the theory. But, I think, with exceptions, human happiness is the most important. The second problem that I have with consequentialism is the inability to accurately assess immoral situations. The first example coming to mind is slavery. One largely populated group is happy, while a minority is very unhappy. In this case, it is morally acceptable. Slavery sets an example to several other immoral situations, like torture, kidnapping, or murder. If one party has more happiness than the unhappiness of the other, than it is moral. Which, obviously, is not the case. I believe the cause of pain or hurt should be counted in more than the “happiness” in the situation. In my opinion, pain is much more significant than happiness, and it takes a bigger toll on you. The goal should be to attempt to minimize or eliminate pain while still maintaining the highest possible amount of happiness.