1.5 - consequentialism

intro to consequentialism

in previous lectures, we explored ethics through mostly absolutist frameworks - approaches like human rights, perfect duties, and social contracts. these frameworks often assume fixed, unchanging moral rules that must be followed regardless of the situation. however, sometimes we believe that breaking these rules can be ethical if it serves a greater purpose. for example, we might think it’s ethical to lie, deny someone their rights, or even to kill, if doing so achieves a significant positive outcome.

key concepts of consequentialism

this lecture introduces the consequential approach to ethical decision making, examining its origins, types, applications, and limitations.

historical background of consequentialism

consequentialism is closely linked with the British utilitarians - philosophers like Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Sidgewick. These thinkers sought an empirical measure of goodness or moral rightness, something that could be observed and calculated.

Jeremy Bentham famously defined this measure with the principle:

“it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.“

this principle aimed to quantify happiness or well being to create a clear basis for right for determining what is right or wrong.

types of consequential reasoning

there are different branches within consequentialism, each offering a unique perspective on how to determine on the ethicality of actions:

  • act utilitarianism:

    • focuses on evaluating individual actions based on their consequences

    • Bentham’s approach was rooted in what he called the hedonistic calculus, a method for quantifying pleasure and pain

    • according to Bentham, an experience’s value [whether it brings pleasure or pain] depends on several factors:

      • intensity - how strong is the pleasure/pain?

      • duration - how long does it last?

      • certainty - how likely is it to occur?

      • proximity - how immediate is it?

      • fecundity - will it lead to more pleasure or pain?

      • purity - is it free from the opposite sensation?

      • extent - how many people are affected?

example - the ford pinto case

ford used a cost benefit analysis to decide not to fix a fuel tank design flaw, balancing the cost of potential harm to customers against the financial costs of redesigning the car. this case is often used to discuss the limitations and ethical implications of a purely consequentialist approach

  • ideal utilitarianism [objective good utilitarianism]:

    • attempts to address criticisms that utilitarianism reduces life to the pursuit of pleasure alone

    • John Stuart Mill distinguished between higher and lower pleasures. he argued that intellectual and moral pleasures [higher pleasures] are more valuable than mere physical pleasure [lower pleasures]

    • Gustafson [2013] argues that utilitarianism provides a useful framework for business ethics, guiding decisions toward maximising social benefit. according to Mill, ideal utilitarianism:

      • aims at the common good

      • considers long term societal benefits

      • promotes moral education by fostering social concern in individuals

  • rule utilitarianism:

    • rather than evaluating individual actions, rule utilitarianism assesses the consequences of following certain rules

    • e.g. codes of ethics in professional fields are often developed with the public interest in mind, promoting consistent ethical standards across an industry

    • rule utilitarianism argues that publicly known, binding rules enhance utility by creating predictable and universally acceptable standards across an industry

    • e.g. codes of ethics in industries like medicine or law. when widely accepted and enforced, these codes can promote trust, and serve the public good.

applications of consequentialism

evidence based medicine

organisations like NICE [national institute for Health and Care Excellence] use cost utility analysis to evaluate medical treatments. they apply measures such as quality adjusted life years [QALYs] to determine whether a treatments benefits justify its costs.

NICE approves treatments that cost up to 30k per QALY, ensuring that limited resources are used for interventions with the most beneficial impact

cost benefit analysis in public projects

for example. the M4 relief road project. this project would emit over 500k tonnes of CO2, raising questions about its long term environmental impact.

although the road might save time for wealthy commuters, critics argue that the project may not serve the best interest of future generations or the environment.

problems and criticisms of consequentialism

while consequentialism can be useful, particularly for public policy, it also has significant limitations:

  • prediction difficulties - predicting the outcomes of actions is often challenging, and uncertain consequences can make consequentialist reasoning unreliable

  • immeasurable outcomes - some benefits or harms are difficult to quantify, complicating the application of a strictly consequentialist approach

  • competing claims - when different groups have conflicting interests, it can be hard to weigh their competing claims fairly

  • individual rights and justice - consequentialism may justify actions that violate individual rights if those actions lead to greater overall happiness, which conflicts with common moral intuitions

  • self interest - consequentialist thinking may overlook the value of personal commitments or duties, focusing too much on broader outcomes rather than individual relationships or responsibilities

as philosopher Sinnott-Armstrong highlights, these challenges make consequentialism more suitable for large scale public policy decisions rather than personal or corporate ethical dilemmas, where individual rights, justice, and relational duties may be more relevant

summary

consequentialism, particularly through utilitarian frameworks, offers a way of evaluating ethics based on outcomes. from maximising happiness to implementing rules for the greater good, consequentialist thinking has influenced everything from medicine to corporate codes of conduct. however, its reliance on outcome based reasoning can lead to significant ethical challenges, especially when balancing competing interests, individual rights, and uncertain outcomes


consequentialism:

c is evaluating morality of an action based on its outcomes/results rather than fixed rules. the key idea is that an action is ethical if it produces best overall result regardless of if that means breaking traditional moral rules like lying or killing. this is a contrast to absolutism which is based on unchanging principles, c focuses more on situational context and results.

historically, it is closely aligned with british utilitarians like JB JSM HS who sought a measure for goodness and moral righteousness. HB - “the greatest happiness is the greatest number in measuring what is right or wrong“. c acts as a way to quantify happiness to provide a clear basis in determining what is right or wrong

act ut. is evaluating an actions morality based on its consequences, and JB came up with a method of quanitfying pleasure and pain called the hedonistic calculus. in his opinion. every experiences value [whether it brings pleasure or pain] depends on