Intro to Ethics - Consequentialism

Consequentialism

The right act to perform is the act that produces the best overall consequences in the long run

Best overall consequences

Different versions of consequentialism arise depending on how one defines the meaning

Utilitarians best overall consequences

Define exclusively in terms of happiness (best action = the one that produces the most overall happiness)

Pluralistic consequentialists best overall consequence

Define in terms of multiple values, such as happiness, justice, and well-being. Recognize more than one intrinsic good (e.g. according to Brad Hooker, both fairness and happiness are intrinsic goods)

Attractions of consequentialism

Requires no belief in the supernatural + rooted in an ideal of equality + the fact that (since it recognizes just one master principle) it generates no conflicts of duty

Moral motive

Sympathy with others’ suffering

Three main objections

The measurement problem, the objection alleging that consequentialism recommends intuitively wrong actions (e.g. breaking the promise to Billy), the
objection that consequentialism is too demanding

The measurement problem

Often requires subjective judgments about the value and weight of different consequences, which can vary greatly between individuals and situations. We can’t predict the future, and actions often have cascading effects.

The objection alleging that consequentialism recommends intuitively wrong actions

Even if an action appears morally questionable on the surface, it could be considered "right" if it leads to the best overall outcome, potentially causing situations where seemingly wrong actions are justified based on their positive consequences (lying)

Consequentialism is too demanding

Often requires individuals to make significant sacrifices and constantly prioritize the greater good, sometimes to an unreasonable extent, going beyond what most people would consider morally necessary in everyday life

Rule Consequentialism

Holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by an ideal moral code. This code is made up of rules that are chosen based on their consequences.

Brad Hooker’s pluralistic rule consequentialist theory

Recognizes fairness as intrinsically valuable, unlike utilitarianism

The motive behind rule consequentialism

Not the sympathetic motive to produce the most good, but rather to show respect for others by behaving toward others in ways that you can impartially justify to them (“my behavior is permitted by the optimific set of rules” is an impartially defensible justification)

Rule consequentialism requires less charitable giving

Asks us to suppose that nearly all well-off people (having internalized a charitable aid rule) are contributing to charity, and since any educational process that’s capable of getting most people to internalize a rule of extreme- giving (as opposed to merely moderate-giving) would be an excessively costly and miserable educational process, thereby making such a rule non-optimific.