The president, who is a woman, faces a critical time as she’s accused of violating the constitution and abusing her power by allowing a friend and aide to influence government decision making and extorting money from the country’s biggest conglomerates. There’s also many other accusations of wrongdoing against her. Lawmakers in South Korea are proposing impeachment proceedings to protect the constitution and restore the constitutional order by removing Park Geun-hye from the president in office. There have been protests in Korea ever since this scandal came to light. Hundreds of people angry, rallying, and holding candle light vigils.
I began to look at this scenario as perhaps a form of consequentialism. Specifically the description of “Rule Consequentialism.” I thought of this in specific because rule consequentialism is based off of moral rules on their consequences; whether acts are good or bad depends on moral rules. The moral rules are typically chosen on basis of their consequences, so the South Korean president in this sense. Did she feel as if consulting and permitting friends of her to help run the government, it was morally a good act? You would have to ask yourself, if i make this choice, is there any sort of rule to be applied before making my decision, is this morally appropriate if it was adopted by most people? With rule consequentialism and why I think it ties into this is because it is known to be sorta like the easy-way-out option. For better words, a shortcut decision. On the contrary, with rule consequentialism using general rules, the chances of the best/good result being produced is very low. Therefore, I don’t even think that Park thought about internalizing whether the consequences from her decisions would result in maximizing good for the majority, or whether it was trust she put forth in her friends and got screwed in some sort of way. One can argue one way or another, but to me, this was a judgement call from the start and she almost sculpted her own consequences she felt was morally acceptable, in her rule book and not for the majorities rule book.