Consequentialism pt 2

Consequences can extend far into the future

Utilitarianism counts all consequences of an action, even consequences that occur long after the action. There is no fixed time limit on which consequences matter.

The problem of moral knowledge

If the morality of an action depends on all of its consequences, it can be difficult to know whether an action is right because some consequences have not happened yet and cannot be predicted with certainty.

Actual-results view

The actual-results view says an action's moral status depends on the results it actually produces. An action is right if its actual results are optimific.

Expected-results view

The expected-results view says an action's moral status depends on the results that could reasonably be expected when the action was performed.

Why actual results create uncertainty

Because future consequences cannot be perfectly predicted, we cannot always know with certainty whether an action will ultimately produce the best results.

Moral ignorance

Moral ignorance refers to situations in which people do not know whether an action is morally right or wrong. The reading says moral theories must allow for some degree of moral ignorance.

Why most utilitarians favor actual results

The reading says most utilitarians reject expected results as the final standard because an action that was reasonably expected to be good can actually produce terrible results, while an action expected to be bad can unexpectedly produce excellent results.

Helping the stranger example

A person helps an elderly stranger cross the street with good intentions, but a reckless driver kills the stranger. Under the actual-results view, the action was morally wrong because refusing to help would have produced better actual results.

Expected results and the stranger example

Under the expected-results view, helping the stranger would be considered morally right because a reasonable person could have expected helping him across the street to have good results.

Parole board example

A parole board releases a prisoner because there is strong evidence that he has changed, but he later kills people. The actual-results view judges the action wrong because of its disastrous consequences, even though the decision was based on good expectations.

Why expected-results theory has problems

Expected-results theory can classify actions as morally right even when they actually cause terrible harm, and can classify actions as wrong even when they unexpectedly produce excellent results.

Bullies example

A person confronts a bully expecting the situation to become worse, but the bully unexpectedly backs down. If morality depended only on expected results, the action would be judged immoral even though it produced an excellent outcome.

Actions vs. intentions

Classic utilitarianism evaluates actions according to their actual results, while intentions are evaluated separately according to whether they were reasonably expected to produce good results.

Can a morally wrong action have a good intention?

Yes. A utilitarian can judge an action morally wrong because of its actual consequences while still considering the person's intention good if the person reasonably expected good results.

Can a morally right action have a bad intention?

Yes. If an action accidentally produces the best possible results, utilitarianism can judge the action right even when the person intended to cause harm.

Assassin example

An assassin's bullet misses the intended victim but accidentally disables the assassin and an accomplice, leading to their capture. The action can be judged right based on its results even though the assassin's intention was bad.

Utilitarianism and blame

Punishment or blame for a person is not automatically determined by whether their action was morally right or wrong. Utilitarianism can distinguish the morality of an action from the moral quality of the person's intention.

Impartiality

Utilitarianism says every person's welfare has equal moral importance. Differences such as wealth, race, gender, or religion do not make one person's well-being count more than another's.

Why impartiality is an attraction of utilitarianism

Utilitarianism provides an impartial standard because everyone's well-being counts equally, rather than giving special moral weight to yourself or people you personally care about.

Utilitarianism and conventional morality

Utilitarianism often agrees with common moral beliefs because actions such as slavery, rape, killing innocent people, and humiliating defenseless people tend to cause more harm than good.

Utilitarianism and moral virtues

Utilitarianism can explain virtues such as compassion, kindness, and benevolence because these traits tend to promote well-being and reduce misery.

Utilitarianism and moral vices

Utilitarianism can explain vices such as greed, malice, and ingratitude because these traits tend to cause harm to others.

Utilitarianism and moral conflicts

Utilitarianism provides a method for resolving moral conflicts: compare the available options and choose the one that maximizes overall well-being.

Gossip example

A person hears gossip about a sensitive friend. If revealing the gossip would seriously harm the friend while the gossip is unlikely to continue, a utilitarian could advise not revealing it because doing so may produce worse overall consequences.

Moral flexibility

Utilitarianism is a doctrine of moral flexibility because it does not treat ordinary moral rules as absolute. A rule can be broken when doing so produces greater overall well-being.

Absolute moral rules in utilitarianism

Utilitarians reject absolute moral rules other than the principle of utility itself. Rules against stealing, lying, killing, torture, or other actions can theoretically have exceptions if breaking them maximizes well-being.

Donner Party example

The Donner Party faced starvation and considered eating the remains of deceased travelers. A strict moral rule might prohibit cannibalism under every circumstance, while utilitarianism would evaluate whether breaking the rule would maximize overall well-being.

Moral flexibility vs. anything goes

Utilitarianism does not mean anything is automatically acceptable. Normally, following familiar rules such as not stealing, lying, or killing produces good results. Rules should only be broken when doing so improves overall welfare.

Moral community

A moral community consists of beings who are morally important in their own right and whose needs and interests deserve consideration for their own sake.

Bentham's test for moral community

Jeremy Bentham's famous test asks: "Can they suffer?" The ability to experience suffering is used by utilitarians as a basis for determining who belongs to the moral community.

Why tables and cars are not moral community members

Tables and cars cannot suffer, so utilitarianism does not consider them independently morally important. Their importance comes from how they affect beings who can experience well-being or suffering.

Why animals matter to utilitarians

Animals matter morally because they can suffer. Their suffering must be included when calculating the overall consequences of an action.

Species membership and moral importance

According to the utilitarian view presented in the reading, belonging to a particular species is not itself a morally relevant trait. What matters is whether a being can suffer and experience well-being.

Equal suffering and moral consideration

If a human and a nonhuman animal experience the same amount of suffering, utilitarianism says that suffering should count equally in the moral calculation.

Argument from Marginal Cases

The Argument from Marginal Cases argues that if it is wrong to harm or experiment painfully on humans with mental capacities comparable to certain animals, then it should also be wrong to treat those animals that way when they have comparable capacities to suffer.

"Marginal" human beings

In the reading, "marginal" human beings refers to humans whose mental lives are no more developed than those of certain nonhuman animals, such as people with severe brain trauma or extreme cognitive limitations.

Alternative tests for moral community

Other proposed tests for moral importance include the ability to communicate, have emotions, elicit sympathy, be self-aware, govern oneself, assert claims, and think about or plan for the future.

Why utilitarians prefer the ability to suffer

Utilitarians argue that the capacity to suffer is a better basis for moral community membership than traits such as intelligence, communication, or self-awareness because suffering directly matters to well-being.

Slippery slope argument

A slippery slope argument claims that allowing a particular action or policy will lead to increasingly harmful consequences in the future, eventually producing serious or disastrous results.

Two essential parts of a slippery slope argument

First, the argument predicts that allowing a new policy or practice will produce serious avoidable harm. Second, it uses a consequentialist idea that we should avoid that harm and maximize overall happiness or well-being.

Active euthanasia example

Opponents of voluntary active euthanasia may argue that allowing doctors to intentionally end a patient's life could eventually weaken society's protection of innocent life and lead to increasingly harmful practices.

How to evaluate a slippery slope argument

The first step is to evaluate whether the predicted disastrous consequences are actually plausible. The second is to evaluate whether the consequentialist principle being used to avoid those consequences is itself plausible.

Why slippery slope predictions can fail

The reading gives examples where predictions of social disaster turned out to be false, including predictions that ending segregation or allowing women to vote would produce societal chaos.

Uncertainty in slippery slope arguments

When a new policy has little historical evidence, it may be difficult to know whether the predicted harmful consequences will actually occur. More evidence and argument may therefore be needed.

Overall goal of consequentialism

The fundamental moral goal of consequentialism is to make the world as good as possible by choosing actions that produce the best overall results.

Overall goal of utilitarianism

Utilitarianism specifically focuses on maximizing overall well-being. It requires considering everyone's welfare, evaluating consequences, and choosing the option that produces the greatest overall benefit.