Intro to Consequentialism

Scenario: The Hit-and-Run Example

• Driving to work you witness a pedestrian struck by a car; the driver flees.
• Victim is critically injured and will die without immediate aid.
• You discover a bag of money next to him; nobody else is present.
• Four actionable options:
  1. Help without stealing.
  2. Steal without helping.
  3. Help and steal.
  4. Neither help nor steal (leave).
• Guiding question: Which option is morally right?

Framing the Moral Question

• Philosophically robust answers take the form:
  • “An action $a$ is right iff (if and only if) .”
• Goal: fill the blank with conditions that perfectly track moral rightness.
• Different moral theories fill the blank differently:
  • Consequentialism → consequences of $a$.
  • Egoism → self-interest produced by $a$.
  • Deontology → conformity of $a$ to moral duties.

Consequentialism: Core Idea

• Central Claim: Only consequences ultimately matter for moral evaluation.
• Slogan: “The right action is the one with the best consequences.”
• Consequences are always morally relevant; consequentialists say they are also decisive.

Comparing to Other Ethical Theories

• Everyone admits consequences have weight; dispute = how much weight.
• Consequentialism assigns maximal weight—other factors (motives, rules, relationships) matter only insofar as they affect outcomes.

Consequentialist Account of Right Action

• Formal statement:
  • “An action $a$ is morally right iff $a$’s consequences most promote what is good among all available alternatives.”
• Requires two ingredients:
  1. A ranking of available actions by the goodness of their outcomes.
  2. A theory of what counts as “good.”

Applying Consequentialism to the Hit-and-Run Options

• Step 1: List each option’s consequences (survival/death; theft/non-theft; discovery/no discovery).
• Step 2: Determine which option maximizes the good (yet to be decided until we fix a theory of the good).
• Consequentialism itself gives only a decision procedure; content relies on a value theory.

Importance of Defining “Good”

• Choice of value theory is decisive for practical verdicts.
• Example contrast:
  • If suffering & death are somehow “good,” non-helping could be right.
  • If happiness & survival are “good,” helping becomes right.

Candidate Accounts of the Good

• Philosophical proposals mentioned:
  1. Well-being (overall flourishing).
  2. Happiness (positive affective state).
  3. Pleasure (hedonic sensations).

John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarian Consequentialism

• Historical figure: 19th-century British philosopher, key utilitarian.
• Shares consequentialist structure but specifies the good as happiness.
• His brand is often labeled “utilitarianism.”
  • Note: In casual discourse “utilitarianism = consequentialism,” but speaker keeps them distinct (utilitarianism = Mill’s specific version).

Mill’s Definition of Happiness

• $\text{Happiness} = \text{presence of pleasure} + \text{absence of pain}$.
• Both components matter; more pleasure & less pain → greater net happiness.
• Example: Eating chocolate (pleasure) while having a toothache (pain) = some happiness, but more would exist if pain were removed.

Mill’s Argument: Happiness is the Only Intrinsic Good

1. Premise 1 – Happiness is the only intrinsic good.
   • Intrinsic good = valuable for its own sake.
   • Contrasts with extrinsic/instrumental goods (valuable as means).
2. Premise 2 – Whatever is good must be good in itself, not merely as a means.
3. Conclusion – Therefore, happiness is the good.

Instrumental vs. Intrinsic Goods (Illustrations)

• Money
  • Only valuable because it purchases happiness-producers (comfort, security, experiences).
• Painkillers (e.g., Tylenol)
  • Valuable only insofar as they remove pain, thereby increasing net happiness.
• Both count as instrumental; neither is good simply in itself.

Implications for the Hit-and-Run Scenario (Mill-Style)

• Must evaluate which of the four options maximizes aggregate happiness (pleasure-minus-pain) for all affected.
• Consider factors like:
  • Victim’s continued life & future pleasures.
  • Victim’s pain if untreated.
  • Your own pleasure/pain from guilt, risk of punishment, monetary gain.
  • Ripple effects on others (family, society trusting drivers, etc.).
• The morally right choice = option whose total hedonic balance is highest.

Terminology: Consequentialism vs. Utilitarianism

• Consequentialism = umbrella theory: rightness depends solely on consequences.
• Utilitarianism (in this lecture) = Mill’s variant specifying happiness as the good to be maximized.
• Some authors use the terms interchangeably; speaker cautions against doing so here.

Next Topic Teaser

• Upcoming discussion: Potential problems/objections to consequentialism (e.g., demandingness, injustice, measurement issues, etc.).