2.1 Foundations of Consequentialism

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