Doing the "Right" Thing in Hamlet When an individual has taken a certain course of action, who is to determine whether that action taken was right or wrong? And what basis should the individual making the judgment use to decide whether that action was right or wrong? Should the individual making a judgment consider the other individual's purpose or intent in taking the action, or should he consider the consequences resulting from the other individual's actions? If the individual expressing the judgment chose to make the first of these two alternatives, he would take a deontological position, compared to the second which describes the consequentialist vision. As Stephen J. Freeman explains, consequentialism is the belief that “actions and/or rules are right as long as they produce the most favorable consequences for those affected by the actions or rules” (Freeman 63). Consequentialists view the morality of a consequence in two respects. One aspect is what is called ethical selfishness. Ethical egoism is “the idea that morality is defined as acting in one's own self-interest and in such a way as to maximize the consequences of good over evil” (Freeman 49). In contrast to ethical egoism is utilitarianism. Utilitarians view morality as when an action promotes the greatest balance between good and evil for all people. “Utilitarianism is a teleological, goal-directed theory that emphasizes happiness as the end result of human action” (Freeman 49). In Freeman's book on ethics, he discusses Holmes's proposal of two types of teleological ethical theories that apply to these two different consequentialists. views. Holmes' proposal is that of micro and macro ethics. Microethics considers the happiness of the individual as the supreme good and defines what is right as the action that maximizes this end. By definition, microethics is very similar to the belief in ethical egoism. On the other hand, macroethics considers happiness as the well-being of a group as a whole and defines what is right as the action that maximizes that end. As used here, a group may be those of the people of a specific city, state, nation, or race, and any particular group has "greater importance than any particular individual or subgroup within it, because its good exceeds the sum of all others". its parts" (Freeman 49). Supporters of macroethics would justify the sacrifice of an individual or part of the group, as long as it results in beneficial consequences for the group as a whole.