Consequentialism holds that anaction is morally permissible if and only if it is acceptable or not wrong to performit. The many complex branches of consequentialism can help determine if an actis morally permissible. Act Consequentialism holds that the permissibility ofan action is based on how good its consequences are compared to its feasibleconsequences. Act Utilitarianism, best known by its Act ConsequentialistTheory, hold an emphasis on designing and justifying acts and social structuresin terms of well-being.
Maximizing Act Consequentialism hold that all shouldseek to perform acts that maximize well-being for all. But in a time when nearlyeveryone on earth is accessible and there are unlimited wants with limitedresources, Maximizing Act Consequentialism is flawed in its demandingness. Theproblem in this arises if I should seek to maximizing well-being for all, sinceI may be sacrificing my own well-being for the well-being of others. Inattempting to satisfy Act Consequentialism, consequences might be judgedadequate if they are better than at least 50 percent of the alternatives, or ifthey do not make things worse than doing nothing. Problems arise in this in itsUtilitarian Value, which promotes and focuses the action that promotes the greatesttotal well-being, which is flawed in that well-being is difficult to quantitativelymeasured, its distribution of well-being, and its insensitivity to the choicespeople make. David Brink in his excerpt, SomeForms and Limits of Consequentialism, states “Many issues that arise inunderstanding and assessing consequentialist conceptions of right action apply mutatis mutandis to other kinds ofconsequentialist analysis” (Copp, pg. 381).
While making these necessaryaltercations to these consequentialist conceptions, it can be easy to applythese altercations to a main issue at large. Here, using a