.png)
Consequentialism judges actions based on their outcomes, not intentions. It's all about maximizing good consequences for everyone involved. This approach can lead to some surprising conclusions that challenge our usual moral intuitions.
Utilitarianism, a popular form of consequentialism, aims for the greatest good for the most people. It treats everyone's interests equally and adds up all the costs and benefits to determine the right action.
Consequentialist Ethical Theories
Core Principles and Assumptions
Top images from around the web for Core Principles and Assumptions
The three moral codes of behaviour | Clamor World View original
Is this image relevant?
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
The three moral codes of behaviour | Clamor World View original
Is this image relevant?
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 2
Top images from around the web for Core Principles and Assumptions
The three moral codes of behaviour | Clamor World View original
Is this image relevant?
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
The three moral codes of behaviour | Clamor World View original
Is this image relevant?
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 2
- Judge the morality of an action based on its consequences
- Actions are morally right if they produce good consequences and morally wrong if they produce bad consequences
- Consequences evaluated in terms of happiness, well-being, preference satisfaction, or other values
- Compare the values produced by alternative actions and quantify the good and bad associated with their outcomes
- Total utility often calculated by summing up the utility (positive or negative) of each affected individual
- Agent-neutral theories consider everyone's interests equally
- Contrasted with agent-relative theories that give special moral priority to the agent's own interests, duties, or contractual obligations
- Some argue there is no intrinsic moral difference between acting and omitting to act if the consequences are the same (act-omission distinction)
- Some argue there is no intrinsic moral difference between intended and unintended consequences if the consequences are the same (doctrine of double effect)
Utilitarianism as a Well-Known Form
- Utilitarianism is the most well-known form of consequentialism
- Core utilitarian principle holds that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number
- Utilitarians define the good in terms of utility, which can be understood as happiness, well-being, or preference satisfaction
- Utilitarianism requires impartially considering and aggregating the interests of all affected individuals
- Example: A utilitarian would say that a world with 100 moderately happy people is better than a world with 99 extremely happy people and 1 person in extreme suffering
Actions, Consequences, and Morality
Instrumental vs. Intrinsic Value
- Actions seen as instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable
- Moral worth of an action determined by its outcome rather than the intrinsic nature of the act itself
- Consequences are what matter, not the agent's motives, intentions, or adherence to rules
- A good action could spring from bad motives and vice versa (lying to protect someone)
- Ends can sometimes justify the means
- A harmful action can be morally justified if it leads to sufficiently good consequences (torturing a terrorist to prevent an attack)
Radical Implications and Thought Experiments
- No act is absolutely prohibited if the stakes are high enough
- Even killing an innocent person could potentially be justified if it would prevent sufficiently bad consequences
- Some consequentialists use vivid thought experiments to pump moral intuitions in favor of impartially maximizing the good
- Example: Peter Singer's drowning child thought experiment suggests we have a strong obligation to help others in need even at significant cost to ourselves
- Consequentialism sometimes requires actions that violate commonsense moral norms
- Breaking promises, lying, stealing, or even killing could be justified if it leads to better consequences
- Example: A consequentialist could argue it's right to lie to a murderer about the location of their intended victim
Impartiality and Aggregation in Consequentialism
Equal Consideration of Interests
- Consider everyone's interests equally when calculating the overall value of outcomes
- No special priority given to self, family, members of one's own species, nationality, etc.
- Well-being of a prince is no more important than the well-being of a peasant
- Suffering of humans and animals should be given equal consideration if they are of comparable intensity and duration
- Example: The suffering of a pig in a factory farm matters just as much as the suffering of a human in poverty on a consequentialist view
Aggregating Costs and Benefits
- Morality of an action depends on the sum total of its good and bad consequences for all affected individuals
- Small benefits to a large number of individuals can outweigh more significant harms to a few
- Example: A policy that improves air quality enough to give a small health benefit to millions could outweigh one that saves a small number of lives
- Some find aggregation problematic when it violates common moral intuitions
- Favoring a very minor benefit to a huge number of people over saving a single life
- But consequentialists argue numbers should count and impartiality requires taking such trade-offs seriously
- Tend to favor a reductionist approach to value, analyzing complex situations in terms of individual experiences (pleasure, suffering, preference satisfaction, etc.)
- But some think other intrinsic values like beauty, knowledge and fairness should also be maximized
Strengths vs Weaknesses of Consequentialism
Merits of the Consequentialist Approach
- Provides clear guidance in moral decision-making by reducing all morally relevant factors to a single scale of value
- Offers a straightforward procedure for determining the right course of action: choose the one that produces the best overall consequences
- Fits well with intuitions that results matter and it's right to act in ways that benefit people
- Justifies many common moral norms by showing how they generally produce good consequences
- Prohibitions on lying, stealing, killing, etc.
- Impartiality and equal consideration of interests avoids the arbitrariness of commonsense morality's special obligations and permissions
Objections and Potential Problems
- Too demanding, requires us to always act in the way that produces the best consequences
- Undermines the personal point of view and leaves no room for permissible acts of self-interest or partiality to loved ones
- Sometimes leads to conclusions that violate commonsense moral norms
- Punishing the innocent, breaking promises, or violating individual rights for the greater good
- Example: Framing an innocent person to stop a riot that would lead to many deaths
- Consequentialists argue commonsense morality should be revised to better fit with impartial benevolence
- Faces epistemological objections regarding our ability to reliably predict and quantify the consequences of our actions
- Seemingly optimific actions can lead to unforeseen negative consequences
- Example: A charity intervention that looks highly cost-effective could have negative systemic effects that ultimately cause more harm than good
Key Terms to Review (23)
Agent-neutral theories: Agent-neutral theories are ethical frameworks that assess the morality of actions based on their consequences for all individuals involved, rather than focusing on the specific intentions or perspectives of the individual agent performing the action. These theories prioritize impartiality and universal considerations, suggesting that moral obligations are not dependent on one's particular situation or relationships.
Act-omission distinction: The act-omission distinction is a moral and philosophical concept that differentiates between actions taken (acts) and the failure to take actions (omissions) in ethical decision-making. This distinction is important because it can influence judgments about moral responsibility, particularly in consequentialist frameworks, where the outcomes of both actions and inactions are evaluated for their ethical implications.
Impartiality: Impartiality refers to the principle of treating all individuals and groups equally without bias or favoritism. It emphasizes fairness and objectivity, ensuring that decisions and judgments are made based on relevant criteria rather than personal feelings or relationships. This concept is particularly crucial in ethical discussions, as it underpins the moral obligation to consider the interests and well-being of all affected parties, regardless of their identity or status.
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.
Agent-relative theories: Agent-relative theories are ethical frameworks that emphasize the importance of the agent's perspective when evaluating moral actions. These theories hold that the moral status of an action depends not just on the consequences it produces, but also on the intentions, motivations, and duties of the individual acting. This approach contrasts with agent-neutral theories, which assess actions solely based on their overall outcomes, irrespective of who performs them.
Peter Singer: Peter Singer is a contemporary Australian philosopher best known for his work in bioethics and his advocacy for animal rights and utilitarian ethics. His influential ideas challenge traditional views on morality, particularly regarding the treatment of animals, the environment, and issues surrounding healthcare and reproductive ethics.
Policy evaluation: Policy evaluation is the systematic assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of public policies and programs. It helps determine whether policies are achieving their intended outcomes and provides insights into potential improvements or modifications needed to enhance their overall impact.
Moral luck: Moral luck refers to the phenomenon where the moral judgment of an individual is influenced by factors beyond their control, specifically the outcomes of their actions. This concept challenges traditional views of moral responsibility, suggesting that people may be judged differently based on circumstances and results rather than just intentions or character. This idea is particularly relevant in discussions about ethical theories that prioritize consequences over intentions.
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Cost-benefit analysis is a systematic approach used to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives in order to determine the best option based on their costs and benefits. This method helps in making informed decisions by quantifying the potential impacts of different choices, thus playing a crucial role in ethical leadership, problem-solving strategies, utilitarianism, and consequentialism.
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.
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.
Doctrine of double effect: The doctrine of double effect is a moral principle that justifies actions that cause a serious harm as a side effect of promoting a good end. It emphasizes that it is permissible to cause harm if the harm is not the intended outcome, and if the action meets certain criteria, such as being morally good or neutral in itself. This principle often comes into play in discussions about ethical dilemmas where one must weigh the consequences of their actions.
Utility: Utility refers to the overall happiness or satisfaction that an action or decision brings to individuals. It serves as a fundamental concept in ethical theories that evaluate the consequences of actions, focusing on maximizing benefits for the greatest number of people. This notion is key to understanding different moral frameworks, especially those that prioritize outcomes over intentions.
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.
Drowning child thought experiment: The drowning child thought experiment is a philosophical scenario that prompts individuals to consider their moral obligations when they witness someone in need of help, specifically a child drowning in a shallow pond. It challenges the notion of distance and personal responsibility by asking if one should intervene to save the child, even at the cost of losing a pair of shoes, thereby emphasizing the moral imperative to help those in dire situations regardless of the consequences.
Greatest happiness principle: The greatest happiness principle is a foundational concept in utilitarianism that posits the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or pleasure while minimizing suffering. This principle connects ethical decision-making to the outcomes of actions, emphasizing that the moral worth of an action is determined by its contribution to the well-being of all affected individuals.
Sacrificing one to save many: Sacrificing one to save many is a moral principle often associated with consequentialism, where an action is justified if it leads to a greater overall good, even at the cost of an individual's life or well-being. This idea emphasizes the importance of the outcomes of actions over intentions, suggesting that the right choice is one that maximizes positive consequences for the majority.
Negative consequentialism: Negative consequentialism is a moral theory that prioritizes minimizing harm or negative outcomes over maximizing good. It suggests that the ethical worth of an action is determined primarily by its consequences in terms of the prevention of suffering or damage, rather than the promotion of pleasure or benefits. This perspective aligns closely with the core principles of consequentialism, focusing on the results of actions as the basis for ethical decision-making.
Beneficence: Beneficence is the ethical principle that emphasizes the moral obligation to act for the benefit of others, promoting their well-being and happiness. This principle plays a crucial role in evaluating the consequences of actions, where the outcomes should ideally enhance the welfare of individuals or communities, reflecting a fundamental aspect of moral responsibility in ethical decision-making.
Utility maximization: Utility maximization is the principle in economics and ethics that suggests individuals or groups make decisions to achieve the highest level of satisfaction or benefit from their choices. This concept is central to consequentialist theories, which evaluate the morality of actions based on their outcomes and the overall happiness they produce. In this view, actions are deemed ethical if they lead to the greatest good for the greatest number, highlighting the relationship between personal choices and collective welfare.
Virtue Ethics vs. Consequentialism: Virtue ethics and consequentialism are two prominent ethical theories that offer different approaches to moral reasoning. Virtue ethics emphasizes the character of the moral agent and the importance of developing virtuous traits, while consequentialism focuses on the outcomes or consequences of actions to determine their moral worth. These differing perspectives lead to distinct methods of evaluating ethical dilemmas and understanding human behavior in moral contexts.
Means-end reasoning: Means-end reasoning is a form of rational thought that involves determining the best actions or strategies (means) to achieve a desired outcome or goal (end). This type of reasoning is central to consequentialist theories, which assess the morality of actions based on their outcomes, emphasizing that the ends justify the means if they lead to a greater overall good.
Deontology vs. Consequentialism: Deontology and consequentialism are two major ethical theories that guide moral decision-making. Deontology focuses on the morality of actions themselves, emphasizing duties and rules, while consequentialism evaluates the morality based on the outcomes or consequences of those actions. Understanding the difference between these theories is crucial, as it shapes how individuals justify their decisions and the ethical frameworks they adopt in various situations.