Consequentialism or Justice
An important role in defining justice is the concept of right. Hooker (2011), " A consequentialist theory that presupposes both that justice is constituted by such-and-such and that justice is one of the things to be promoted does not explain why the components of justice are important.” (para. 12). This paper is a reflection of Team’s D thoughts about Chapter 5, “Consequentialism or Justice.”

The consequentialism theory is a decision of an individual who will cause a greater good for all. An individual should take the complete relating information and consider every possible option that will provide a decision that will provide every person with greater good. The decision should not affect just one person, or a small group, but each client. At a sleepover party, a rule of not playing with fire should not be set for just one child. The rule should be set for every child in the house because fire is harmful. Every child will benefit from the rule. Distributive justice is the assistance that every human has an equal chance. It provides an ability to help make sure every person has goods equal to others, for the greater good. The goods are not meant to be materialistic, they are meant to be for safety and health for healthy living. The theory intersects with Tamara’s personal value because where Tamara lives, she sees a community that lives by social justice. Many in the neighborhood make informal contracts among each other and use the difference principle because he or she “feels” that he or she is in a worse predicament. An example, a man will sell drugs and rob another person because he believes he is in need more than the person experiencing the robbery. This intersects with Tamara’s personal values because she does not agree with this behavior, and it is not the values she teaches her children. She teaches her children distributive justice so he, and she will learn the distribution of goods are to those who meet the criteria for the good, so if one works for it he or she will earn it.

The theory of consequentialism is the willingness to make decisions that will either benefit them or create direct happiness. What choices are made and how each person reacts to dilemmas depends solely on the direct consequence of their actions. Although the result is happiness, this can be accomplished by helping self or helping others. Ethical egoism may result in immediate self-happiness; however it may conflict with the happiness of others. Utilitarianism provides help to others, but does not have qualitive measures for different people. According to the text, when making a decision one should consider options, alternatives, and consequences of their situation that produces the best outcome for all involved regardless of individual situations (Freeman, 2000).
When I was without family, I made choices and decisions based on my own egoism. However, as a parent, my happiness comes from making my family happy as well. Consequentialism as a theory of ethical decision making is based on how each decision effects those involved. As a parent the use of utilitarianism is most effective value of morality used in my family. While not all decisions made are based on each individual, the happiness of others and the effect of the decision are often considered when making decisions. Issuing punishment for unfavorable behavior is often times done by applying the act of utilitarianism. When establishing values and principles in our family, using consequences as a direct result of bad behavior helps our children make better decisions. Although the situations are harmless to others, when a principle has been violated the rule of utilitarianism must be applied to ensure that punishment and decisions are effective.
Personal decisions, especially in family situations are based on what the consequences are of the decisions will be. As a member of society, the consequences of decisions pose far greater impact. Because decisions affect the group as a whole, it implies fairness in a community. Justice relates to the rights of individuals, groups, or society. The establishment of justice is based on moral understanding from a group, which represents all those involved. Justice is either distributive or social. Distributive justice determines how benefits and burdens are distributed among groups. In my family, financial burdens are not those of the children. However, they may benefit from financial rewards. The form of distributive justice is based on abilities and needs.
Social justice focuses on the rights of individuals, civil rights, and universal human rights. Social justice identifies everyone as equal regardless of age, gender, religion, or economics. This type of justice provides standard of living for everyone for making ethical decision, laws, and developing social contracts. Moral values are based on what each community accepts and enforces. Basic principles of living, decision making, and laws are derived from the original position and veil of ignorance. This group of representatives determines fairness without knowledge of consequences or circumstances of others involved. The constraints put on these rights help develop moral principles in general terms, applying to everyone weak or strong, making public laws, and precedence with conflict resolution (Freeman, 2000).
The decision-making process in my family is affected by consequentialism, while the consequences and responsibility is determined by distributive justice. While each person is expected to perform in a certain manner, this expectation is based only on their abilities. Children are not required to pay bills, take care of parents, or discipline one another. Parents are required to provide structure and discipline without violating human rights while taking responsibility for their family. It is my personal belief that parents are to take the burden of situations when children are not able to make reasonable decisions. My child does not have to work for monetary rewards because being a student is provided an equal educational reward. This is an example of distributive justice. However, both my husband and I are equally responsible based on our ability, for financial obligations.

The basic theme of consequentialism is that actions and rules are right as long as they produce the most favorable consequences for those affected by the actions or rules (Freeman, 2000). Ethical egoism is a view that individuals choose consequences that will produce the greater good for him or her either directly or indirectly. However, utilitarianism view an act right if the consequence will maximize the good and happiness in the greatest amount of individual’s. The basic theme of social justice is contractual in that actions and rules are permissible if they are compatible with the moral principles by which rational self-interested individuals in the right circumstances would agree to live their lives (Freeman, 2000). Individuals should apply his or her moral principles when trying to determine the right action. Andrea believes that each situation has circumstances that influence how she makes the right decision. She believes in any given situation that her moral principles will guild her in making the right decision, such as fairness, lawfulness, honesty, and integrity to name a few.

Concerning a person action what makes it right or wrong? No matter what the act is there are always consequences. This individual believes he or she is acting for award of his or her own personal good or happiness. According to the text, when making a decision one should consider all options, alternatives, and consequences of their situation, which produces the best outcome for all involved regardless of individual situations (Freeman, 2000). On the other hand there is the justice system, which imposes punishment on a person for his or her actions. Under the justice system a person has many rights, and one is a fair and speedy trial. When reading this assignment I thought about the Casey Anthony’s case. In this case we had a missing child who mother acted in a bizarre way, and the reward was happiness to her consequences. On the other hand the disappearance of her daughter went from personal happiness by parting and drinking, to behind bars in jail. Mrs. Anthony had the right to a fair and speedy trial and was found guilty. Because of the lack of evidence and the many unanswered questions Ms. Anthony’s consequences of happiness turned out to be pain and suffering from others. This theory intersects with my personal beliefs because society today only lives by contracts. Anything a person do in this country there is always a contract binding him or her in some way. When a person commits a crime to make him or her happy is wrong, and he or she should be accountable for his or her actions. Because of the Casey Anthony not guilty verdict have opened the doors of her happiness and may land her a contract to make a video. Once again this is promoting her happiness because she believes; she had it worse than any other mother.

Reference Page
Freeman, S. J. (2000). Ethics: An introduction to philosophy and practice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Hooker, B. (2011). Rule Consequentialism . Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism-rule/