Consequentialism

Moore asserted the principle that actions are right if they produce the most good.
Right actions maximize goodness in the world; wrong actions do not.

Consequentialist Viewpoint:
- Justified only if it results in a net benefit (decreases crime, increases security).
- Requires analysis of benefits vs. drawbacks.
Retributive Viewpoint:
- Focus on whether individuals deserve punishment regardless of the future outcomes.
- Justice comes before societal happiness.
Consequentialists encourage focusing on forward-looking outcomes rather than past actions.

Actions are morally required if they yield the best overall results (optimizing).
Steps to Determine Optimization:
1. Identify what is inherently good (e.g., happiness, autonomy).
2. Identify what is inherently bad (e.g., pain, anguish).
3. Determine all possible actions available.
4. Assess the value of the consequences of each action.
5. Select the action with the best good-to-bad outcome ratio.

Act Utilitarianism:
- States well-being is the ultimate intrinsic value; poor faring is the ultimate intrinsic bad.
- Actions are right if they improve well-being more than any alternative actions.
Utilitarianism defined by maximizing overall well-being:
- John Stuart Mill's Principle: "Greatest good for the greatest number" but stresses qualitative aspects of happiness.

First misunderstanding: Must benefit the greatest number?
- Not necessarily; the quality of benefit matters as well as quantity.
- Example: Support for minority over majority if it yields greater long-term benefits.
Second misunderstanding: Must create the highest happiness?
- Not always; an action can create more overall happiness but also cause significant misery.

Rightness depends on results—actual versus expected.
Actual results: Reflect the true consequences of an action.
Expected results: Based on predictions made prior to action.
Utilitarianism faces challenges of moral ignorance; not all outcomes can be successfully predicted.

Actions judged by actual results; intentions valued based on expected outcomes.
Example: Helping a pedestrian can yield poor results, but intentions are still praiseworthy.
Assassins may succeed but are condemned for ill intent despite beneficial outcomes.

Impartiality:
- Every person's well-being holds equal value regardless of status or identity.
Justification of Moral Beliefs:
- Utilitarianism supports commonly accepted morals, condemning clearly harmful actions (e.g., slavery, rape).
Conflict Resolution:
- Utilitarianism provides guidance when moral dilemmas arise, focusing on maximizing well-being.
Example: Choosing whether to disclose damaging information based on anticipated emotional impact.
Moral Flexibility:
- Challenge of absolutes; moral rules can be bent if better outcomes result, such as in extreme survival scenarios.

Animals considered members of the moral community based on their capacity to suffer.
Utilitarianism's benchmark: "Can they suffer?" (Jeremy Bentham).
Ethical arguments against marginal humans treated equivalently to animals based on suffering capacity.
Argument from Marginal Cases:
- Claims such as treating animals and marginalized humans similarly.

Everyone's suffering counts equally; ethical considerations extend beyond just human members.
Utilitarians affirm moral accountability, arguing that marginalized humans and non-human animals share moral relevance due to suffering.

How does John Stuart Mill's principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number" address the tension between the quality and quantity of well-being, and can prioritizing one over the other lead to morally questionable outcomes?
How does the tension between actual results and expected results influence the reliability of consequentialist decision-making in complex moral scenarios?
What implications does Jeremy Bentham's benchmark of suffering as the criterion for moral community membership have for ethical considerations involving animals and marginalized humans?