Given that consequentialism determines whether an act is morally right or not based on its consequences, consider the following example. You and your friends are out at the bar for a night of drinking and debauchery (sound familiar?). One of your friends, Chris, gives another friend, Hank, a shot. Chris does not know that Hank is very intoxicated and does not need another drink. When Hank takes the shot, he starts to vomit all over the bar, getting him and the rest of your friends kicked out of the bar. Your friends get angry at Chris for buying Hank another drink, but Chris claims innocence because he had no idea what would happen. This situation begs the question: is an action morally wrong when negative consequences were unintended? How about if the consequences were intended?
For paper 2, I will be exploring FIFA’s role in inciting unrest among Brazil’s public prior to the 2014 World Cup through the lens of consequentialism. In order to analyze this case, I used Google Scholar to find literature about consequentialism. Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy posted a comprehensive outline of consequentialism and the important considerations that go along with applying it. I thought that a particularly interesting point that the authors bring up is the notion of intended vs. unintended consequences, which I hopefully illustrated in my above example. Would it matter if FIFA did not understand the ramifications of its operation in Brazil? Does that make them any less culpable?
I plan to unpack this question further by first analyzing the history of FIFA. What kind of organization is it, and what are some key historical events? Who runs FIFA and what is their image? Then, I want to understand how they picked Brazil as a host nation and how they prepared. How did they aim to understand their impact, if they even did this exercise at all? At this point, I have way more questions than answers, but the overall direction of my paper is starting to become apparent.