2.3 Critiques and Limitations of Consequentialist Ethics
5 min read•july 30, 2024
, a key ethical theory, faces several critiques. Critics argue it's too demanding, requiring constant sacrifice for the greater good. It also clashes with common moral intuitions, potentially justifying rights violations for better outcomes.
Consequentialists respond by defending their theory's logic and proposing modifications. and two-level approaches aim to address concerns while maintaining a focus on outcomes. These debates highlight the complexities of balancing individual rights with overall welfare in ethical decision-making.
Objections to Consequentialism
Demandingness and Impracticality
Top images from around the web for Demandingness and Impracticality
Ethical Principles - Free of Charge Creative Commons Highway Sign image View original
Is this image relevant?
The three moral codes of behaviour | Clamor World View original
Is this image relevant?
4 Principles of Ethics in Psychology by Frederatic on DeviantArt View original
Is this image relevant?
Ethical Principles - Free of Charge Creative Commons Highway Sign image View original
Is this image relevant?
The three moral codes of behaviour | Clamor World View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Demandingness and Impracticality
Ethical Principles - Free of Charge Creative Commons Highway Sign image View original
Is this image relevant?
The three moral codes of behaviour | Clamor World View original
Is this image relevant?
4 Principles of Ethics in Psychology by Frederatic on DeviantArt View original
Is this image relevant?
Ethical Principles - Free of Charge Creative Commons Highway Sign image View original
Is this image relevant?
The three moral codes of behaviour | Clamor World View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Consequentialist theories are often criticized for being too demanding, requiring individuals to always act to maximize overall well-being even at great personal sacrifice
- seems to require unrealistic and undesirable levels of impartiality, with agents giving no special priority to their own interests, relationships, or personal projects
- Trying to actually implement thoroughgoing consequentialism might be self-defeating, as constantly calculating consequences could lead to paralyzing indecision, alienation from personal connections, and overall worse results
- Applying consequentialist theories in practice requires predicting and quantifying all the effects of our actions, which may be impossible in many situations given the limits of human knowledge
Counterintuitive Implications
- Critics argue consequentialism could justify violating individual rights if doing so would lead to better overall consequences, making the theory seem to permit or even require intuitively unethical actions
- Thought experiments like pushing an innocent person in front of a runaway trolley to save five others illustrate how consequentialism can conflict with common moral intuitions about rights and using people merely as means
- Consequentialists may have to endorse highly unequal distributions of well-being, including imposing great suffering on an individual for the greater good, which seems to violate principles of justice and fairness
- Some consequences of our actions, like effects on future generations or unforeseeable long-term impacts, seem especially difficult to assess and weigh against more immediate concerns
Consequentialist Responses
- Consequentialists may respond by arguing the of a moral theory does not make it false, and that respecting rights and justice tends to promote the best consequences in most real-world situations
- Rule consequentialists attempt to avoid conflicts with rights by evaluating moral rules rather than individual acts based on their consequences, arguing that a rule requiring respect for rights will tend to promote the best outcomes
- Some consequentialists "bite the bullet" and maintain that violating individual rights can be morally justified if the overall consequences are good enough (preventing catastrophic outcomes)
- Two-level consequentialist views hold that individuals should mostly follow commonsense moral norms, but that these norms themselves should be selected based on their overall consequences
Consequentialism vs Rights
Violating Rights for the Greater Good
- Consequentialist theories seem to imply that violating an individual's rights could be morally required if doing so would produce sufficiently good consequences overall
- Thought experiments like pushing an innocent person in front of a runaway trolley to save five others illustrate how consequentialism can conflict with common moral intuitions about rights and using people merely as means
- Consequentialists may have to endorse highly unequal distributions of well-being, including imposing great suffering on an individual for the greater good, which seems to violate principles of justice and fairness
Separateness of Persons
- Some argue consequentialism fails to respect the by aggregating utility across individuals and ignoring the distribution of well-being
- Even if the consequences could be known, critics argue that there is no truly impartial way to make interpersonal comparisons of well-being or aggregate utility across separate individuals
- Consequentialist reasoning requires giving equal weight to the interests of all affected individuals, which can lead to counterintuitive conclusions that fail to prioritize special obligations (family, promises)
Rule Consequentialism and Individual Acts
- Rule consequentialists attempt to avoid conflicts with rights by evaluating moral rules rather than individual acts based on their consequences, arguing that a rule requiring respect for rights will tend to promote the best outcomes
- This allows the rule consequentialist to generally prohibit actions like lying or violating rights, since a world where everyone followed such a rule would have better consequences than a world with rampant dishonesty and rights violations
- However, the rule consequentialist still seems committed to violating the rule in extreme thought experiments where doing so would prevent a catastrophe, leading some to object that it collapses into
Feasibility of Consequentialism
Difficulties of Prediction and Quantification
- Applying consequentialist theories in practice requires predicting and quantifying all the effects of our actions, which may be impossible in many situations given the limits of human knowledge
- Some consequences of our actions, like effects on future generations or unforeseeable long-term impacts, seem especially difficult to assess and weigh against more immediate concerns
- Even if the consequences could be known, critics argue that there is no truly impartial way to make interpersonal comparisons of well-being or aggregate utility across separate individuals
Psychological Feasibility
- Consequentialist reasoning seems to require unrealistic and undesirable levels of impartiality, with agents giving no special priority to their own interests, relationships, or personal projects
- Trying to actually implement thoroughgoing consequentialism might be self-defeating, as constantly calculating consequences could lead to paralyzing indecision, alienation from personal connections, and overall worse results
- Humans may simply be psychologically incapable of the kind of impartial, detached reasoning that consequentialism requires, instead relying on moral heuristics (rules of thumb)
Scalar Consequentialism
- Given the difficulties of reliably maximizing utility, some consequentialists argue we should adopt a "scalar" conception that simply tries to produce better outcomes rather than the best possible outcome
- requires agents to produce good enough outcomes rather than the very best consequences, reducing demandingness while preserving the core consequentialist focus on results
- This makes consequentialism more feasible to implement, but may still be objectionably demanding and fails to escape the problem of quantifying and comparing consequences
Consequentialism in Ethical Frameworks
Alternatives to Pure Consequentialism
- Ethical egoism takes the goodness of consequences for the individual agent as the sole standard of morality, avoiding the demandingness objection to impartial consequentialist views
- Deontological theories that recognize prima facie duties, like Ross's moral pluralism, can give some weight to producing good consequences while still respecting constraints like individual rights
- focuses on character traits rather than right actions, but consequentialist considerations can still play a role in assessing what the virtues are and how they should be cultivated and applied
Consequentialist Elements in Other Theories
- While consequentialism as a complete theory may be objectionable, many find it hard to deny that consequences are morally relevant and play some role in our ethical thinking
- Deontological theories can incorporate consequentialist considerations as a prima facie duty to be weighed against other duties (fairness, honesty), or by arguing that individual rights are justified by their positive consequences
- Virtue ethicists can hold that virtuous character traits (compassion, courage) are justified by their tendency to promote good consequences, even if right action doesn't simply reduce to producing the best outcomes
- Two-level consequentialist views separate the criterion of rightness (producing the best consequences) from decision procedures, allowing individuals to mostly rely on commonsense moral norms
Key Terms to Review (24)
Act consequentialism: Act consequentialism is an ethical theory that suggests the morality of an action is determined solely by its outcomes or consequences. This perspective emphasizes evaluating each individual act based on the potential results it produces, advocating for actions that lead to the best overall outcomes, such as maximizing happiness or minimizing suffering.
Consequentialism: Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of actions based on their outcomes or consequences. This means that the moral worth of an action is determined by its ability to produce good results, often measured in terms of overall happiness or welfare. The focus on outcomes connects this theory to various discussions on moral decision-making, animal rights, and the foundations of ethical reasoning.
Consequentialist reasoning: Consequentialist reasoning is an ethical framework that evaluates the morality of an action based on its outcomes or consequences, emphasizing that the rightness or wrongness of actions is determined by their effects on overall happiness or well-being. This approach often prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number, leading to considerations about efficiency and effectiveness in decision-making processes.
Counterintuitive implications: Counterintuitive implications refer to conclusions or outcomes that are not immediately obvious and often go against common sense or initial intuitions about a situation. In the realm of ethics, particularly within consequentialist frameworks, these implications can reveal surprising or morally troubling results of following a strict utilitarian approach.
Demandingness: Demandingness refers to the level of obligation or expectation that moral theories impose on individuals regarding their actions and decisions. In the context of ethical discussions, particularly consequentialist ethics, demandingness raises concerns about whether the moral requirements are excessively high, potentially leading to unrealistic expectations of self-sacrifice or altruism.
Deontological Ethics: Deontological ethics is a moral theory that emphasizes the importance of duty, rules, and obligations in determining the morality of actions. This approach asserts that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences, focusing on adherence to moral rules or principles as the foundation for ethical behavior.
Difficulty in measuring outcomes: Difficulty in measuring outcomes refers to the challenges associated with quantifying the consequences of actions or decisions, particularly in ethical decision-making. This concept highlights that determining the actual results of a particular action can be complex, uncertain, and often subjective, complicating the evaluation of its ethical implications. In many cases, the impact of an action may not be immediately visible or may produce unintended consequences that further obscure clear assessments.
Ethical subjectivism: Ethical subjectivism is the view that moral judgments are based on individual feelings, opinions, and perspectives rather than objective truths. This theory suggests that what is right or wrong varies from person to person and that there are no universal moral standards applicable to all individuals. It connects to discussions around the nature of morality and how personal beliefs influence ethical perspectives.
Ethical trade-offs: Ethical trade-offs refer to the situations where competing values or principles must be balanced against one another in decision-making processes. These trade-offs highlight the complexities in ethical dilemmas, as prioritizing one ethical consideration often results in the compromise or sacrifice of another, leading to difficult choices that can have significant consequences.
Immanuel Kant: Immanuel Kant was an influential German philosopher in the 18th century, known for his work in epistemology and ethics. His ideas emphasize the importance of reason and moral duty, establishing a foundation for deontological ethics, which focuses on adherence to rules and duties rather than consequences.
Impracticality: Impracticality refers to the quality of being unrealistic or unfeasible in terms of application or implementation. It often highlights the challenges or limitations that arise when a theory or principle cannot be effectively applied in real-world situations, particularly in ethical decision-making processes where the consequences of actions are considered.
John Stuart Mill: John Stuart Mill was a 19th-century British philosopher and political economist best known for his contributions to utilitarianism and liberal thought. His work emphasizes the importance of individual liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the greatest happiness principle, which connects directly to the evaluation of moral dilemmas and ethical decision-making.
Long-term vs short-term consequences: Long-term vs short-term consequences refers to the different impacts that actions or decisions can have over varying time frames. Short-term consequences are the immediate results that occur soon after an action, while long-term consequences can unfold over an extended period, potentially affecting future situations and outcomes. Understanding these distinctions is crucial in evaluating the effectiveness and morality of actions, particularly when considering the implications of consequentialist ethics.
Moral permissibility: Moral permissibility refers to the status of an action being acceptable or allowable within a moral framework. It plays a crucial role in ethical theories, determining whether specific actions can be justified without violating moral principles. This concept is particularly significant when evaluating the implications of various ethical theories and their respective critiques, especially when weighing the outcomes against moral duties.
Psychological Feasibility: Psychological feasibility refers to the extent to which individuals can realistically engage with and adopt the implications of a particular ethical theory or decision-making process. It emphasizes the psychological barriers that may prevent individuals from fully applying consequentialist principles, such as the need for emotional engagement and cognitive processing of potential outcomes. This concept is critical in understanding how people perceive and react to the demands of consequentialist ethics, which can sometimes seem detached from human emotions and relationships.
Rule Consequentialism: Rule consequentialism is a moral theory that evaluates the rightness or wrongness of actions based on the consequences of following rules that lead to the best overall outcomes. This approach differs from act consequentialism, which assesses individual actions based solely on their specific outcomes. Rule consequentialism emphasizes creating and adhering to rules that, if generally followed, would produce the most favorable results for society as a whole.
Sacrifice of the few for the many: The sacrifice of the few for the many is an ethical concept in which the needs or welfare of a minority group are subordinated to benefit a larger group. This idea often raises significant moral dilemmas, particularly in consequentialist ethics, where the outcomes justify the means. It prompts questions about justice, individual rights, and the value of lives, weighing the greater good against potential injustices faced by those who are sacrificed.
Satisficing Consequentialism: Satisficing consequentialism is an ethical theory that focuses on achieving satisfactory outcomes rather than maximizing the best possible outcomes in decision-making. It suggests that individuals should aim for good enough results that meet a certain threshold of acceptability, recognizing that striving for the absolute best may be impractical or impossible. This approach addresses critiques of traditional consequentialism by acknowledging the complexities and limitations inherent in evaluating all potential consequences of an action.
Scalar consequentialism: Scalar consequentialism is an ethical theory that evaluates actions based on a scale of consequences rather than a binary good or bad outcome. This approach allows for a nuanced assessment of the potential impacts of an action, considering not just the end results but also the range of possible effects on all stakeholders involved. It highlights the complexities of moral decision-making, recognizing that ethical choices often have multiple dimensions and may yield varied outcomes.
Separateness of Persons: Separateness of persons is a principle in ethical theory that emphasizes the moral significance of individual agents as distinct entities with their own rights, interests, and perspectives. This concept highlights that ethical considerations should respect and recognize individuals as separate beings, particularly in the context of decision-making and moral responsibility.
Trolley problem: The trolley problem is a moral dilemma that involves a choice between two unfavorable outcomes, typically illustrated by a scenario where a person must decide whether to pull a lever to divert a runaway trolley onto a track where it will kill one person instead of five. This thought experiment highlights the complexities of ethical decision-making and the conflicts between utilitarianism and deontological ethics.
Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that posits that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or utility. It emphasizes the outcomes of actions and asserts that the moral worth of an action is determined by its contribution to overall well-being, leading to a focus on the consequences of decisions and policies.
Violating rights for the greater good: Violating rights for the greater good refers to the ethical dilemma where individual rights or liberties may be overridden or compromised to achieve a perceived greater benefit for the majority. This concept often arises in consequentialist ethics, where the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcomes, leading to debates about the justification of harming individuals if it results in a net positive effect for society.
Virtue Ethics: Virtue ethics is an ethical theory that emphasizes the role of an individual's character and virtues in moral philosophy rather than focusing primarily on the consequences of actions or adherence to rules. This approach encourages individuals to cultivate virtuous traits such as honesty, courage, and compassion, suggesting that moral behavior arises from being a good person rather than simply following prescribed rules or evaluating outcomes.