Consequentialism

Exploration of the Value of Human Life

  • Introduction to questions surrounding the value of a human life:

    • What is the value of a human life?

    • Does the value depend on identity or actions?

    • Is one life more valuable than another?

  • Focus of the module:

    • Examination of various ethical theories:

    • Consequentialism

    • Deontology

    • Natural Law

    • Virtue Ethics

    • In particular, focus on J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism.

Consequentialism

  • Definition:

    • Consequentialism emphasizes the importance of the consequences of actions.

    • Evaluates the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the outcomes it produces.

  • Justification:

    • Right action is based on the amount of good (utility) produced by actions/policies.

  • Utilitarianism:

    • The most recognized form of consequentialism.

    • Proposed by J.S. Mill (1806-1873):

    • Advocates for the greatest good for the greatest number.

    • Defines “good” as:

      • Presence of pleasure

      • Absence of pain

    • Approach:

    • Determine actions based on aggregate pleasures and pains within a community.

    • Aim for actions yielding maximum pleasure and minimal pain.

    • Motto: "Happiness for the most."

Types of Utilitarianism

  • Act-Utilitarianism:

    • An action is morally required if it maximizes utility.

    • General moral rules (e.g., do not lie) serve as guides but can be ignored for greater utility.

  • Rule-Utilitarianism:

    • An action is obligatory if it follows a rule that, if uniformly applied, would maximize utility.

    • This seeks to minimize the demands of evaluating every potential action.

  • Agent Neutrality:

    • Consequentialism does not prioritize any individual’s desires or preferences.

    • Agents may need to sacrifice personal interests for the collective good.

Applying Utilitarian Reasoning

  • Steps to apply utilitarian reasoning:

    1. Identify what is intrinsically good.

    2. Identify what is intrinsically bad.

    3. Determine all available options.

    4. Evaluate the results for each option.

    5. Choose the option that maximizes the good to bad outcome ratio (e.g., pleasure to pain).

Actions versus Intentions

  • Key distinctions in utilitarianism:

    • Morally praiseworthy actions may not necessarily be the right actions.

    • Actions evaluated based on actual consequences.

    • Right action maximizes actual utility.

    • Intentions evaluated on expected consequences:

    • Right intention maximizes expected utility.

  • Examples to illustrate:

    • Right action may arise from morally praiseworthy intentions:

    • Example:

      • Saving a drowning boy (intention good) may lead to negative outcomes if the boy leads to significant harm (e.g., Hitler).

    • Wrong intention can lead to a right action:

    • Example:

      • Stealing a car to prevent a drunk driving incident (intention blameworthy, action right).

  • Challenge:

    • Predicting outcomes is difficult ('future not visible').

Attractions of Utilitarianism

  • Strengths include:

    • Impartiality:

    • Considers everyone's interests equally, addressing women's and animal rights ahead of its time.

    • Justification of moral wisdom:

    • Aligns with common beliefs (e.g., opposition to slavery, murder) as they lead to unhappiness.

    • Conflict Resolution:

    • Provides a framework for resolving moral dilemmas through weighing pleasures and pains.

    • Moral Flexibility:

    • Acknowledges that moral rules may not be absolute and can be waived for greater utility.

    • Utilitarianism supports morally questionable actions like lying when justified by outcomes.

Critiques of Utilitarianism

  • Challenges include:

    • Measure of Value:

    • Debate on whether pleasure adequately captures the essence of human good.

    • Measurement:

    • Difficulty in accurately measuring and tallying consequences of actions.

    • Too Demanding:

    • High cognitive burden to evaluate all possible consequences every time.

    • Lack of Individual Rights:

    • Tends to neglect individuals' rights for collective benefits.

    • The Impartiality Objection:

    • No consideration for personal ties (e.g., obligation towards family members).

    • No Intrinsic Wrongness:

    • Allows for actions often deemed universally wrong (e.g., rape, torture) based on the outcomes.

    • The Integrity Objection:

    • Prioritizes outcomes over personal integrity.

    • The Injustice Objection:

    • Potential for serious injustices in pursuit of overall good (examples include organ harvesting).

Illustrative Examples of Critiques

  • The Impartiality Objection:

    • Situation:

    • Soldiers searching for civilians and a mother has to choose between smothering her crying child or risking their lives.

    • Conclusion:

    • Utilitarianism may dictate harming an innocent for perceived greater good.

  • The Injustice Objection (Organ Harvesting Example):

    • Scenario:

    • Doctor harvesting organs from the homeless to save the wealthy.

    • Conclusion:

    • Strict utilitarian assessment supports unethical actions for societal gains.

Conclusion

  • Summation of the insights into utilitarianism as an ethics theory.

  • Mention of forthcoming discussions on Immanuel Kant's deontology.