Smart's Objection Raised Against Consequentialism

The objection raised against consequentialism highlights a fundamental issue with the theory. It argues that consequentialism faces challenges in predicting the outcomes of actions due to the unpredictability of life. The objection is that consequentialism doesn't give clear rules for deciding if actions are right or wrong because it depends on guessing what might happen in the future, and that's often uncertain and can change. This is illustrated by the student’s example, which depicts a situation where someone contemplates punching another person in the head. The student is saying that punching someone would decrease happiness and overall be morally wrong. However, the objection suggests that unforeseen consequences could alter the moral
The objection highlights the difficulty consequentialists face in accurately predicting the outcomes of actions due to the unpredictability of life. In other words, it argues that the morality of actions cannot be determined entirely beforehand because unforeseen consequences may occur. In the end, the objection implies that a moral theory should provide a clear guideline for decision making, which can in turn result in self-governing decision making. Smart's utilitarian ethics focus on making people as happy as possible. He says we should think about what might happen before we act to decide if something is right or wrong. But he admits we can't always predict everything that might happen. So, he suggests using act utilitarianism, which looks at what we think will happen when we decide what to do. Smart thinks we should make decisions based on what we know and what we think will probably happen. Nielsen criticizes old-fashioned moral rules and says we need to be more flexible in our ethics. He thinks morality is complicated and changes depending on the