When the reading talks about consequentialism looking at the idea that we should treat everyone’s happiness equally, it made me think back to my Justice and Civil Society class where we talked about different theories of justice. One of those theories being egalitarianism in which the idea is that everyone deserves equal rights and opportunities. Our society has certainly leaned towards prioritizing the happiness and the provision of opportunities to those that need the most help. But in some cases this has become a topic of debate politically, typically splitting the political party line between democrats and republicans when it comes to giving government funds to lower income people or instead limiting government interference and letting everyone have the equal opportunity to work for their own money, success, along with their own happiness.
This debate about whether or not to follow consequentialism has become an ethical one. In reality, when looking at treating everyone’s happiness equally, you have to look at everyone’s background as this does not necessarily mean an equal playing field for everyone whether this is from the way they grew up economically. In philosophy, it sometimes is quite easy to pin point what is ethical and what is not. But as soon as it comes to real life situations, the lines get blurred and each situation requires a more holistic approach particularly when it is a question of hurting one person or another.
These blurred lines in real life situations are something I was thinking about while reading the chapter as well. When it comes to equality versus equity, as you point out, there will always be criticism because someone will feel they are being treated unfairly, whether it is because someone else is getting more help and resources or because the help/resources one is getting does not do the same amount of good for them as it does for someone else due to their background. I want to add on to this dilemma of blurred lines in real life situations as it relates to the example about the southern US town in the 1940s and the woman’s claim of being raped. The sheriff had to decide whether to frame and innocent black man (and eventually cause his death) or do nothing and allow for many more black southerners to be killed in a rampage from the white southerners. This is similar to the classic trolley problem in which you can decide to do nothing and have the trolley continue on its current path in which it would kill five people, or you can pull a lever to change the direction of the trolley and kill one person to save the five. Different philosophers have different answers to this dilemma based on their view of morality, but, regardless, it does not change the fact that neither decision is a good one (and doing nothing is also a decision) and we have to make those kind of choices sometimes, and that is when the lines do in fact get very blurry.
You bring up a very interesting point. Like you said, consequentialism sounds good and possible in theory; however, in real life, balancing everyones happiness is very difficult. I also really appreciated your connection to Justice and Civil Society, as I am in that class right now and I look forward to explore those future topics.