Consequentialism

Overview of Ethical Theories

• Ethical theories fundamentally aim to accomplish three key objectives:

  • Value Assessment: Identify what we should fundamentally value.

  • Action Determination: Clarify which actions are considered right or just.

  • Behavioral Guidance: Explain how we should behave, including our dispositions and perceptions related to various actions.

Introduction to Consequentialism

• The central tenet of consequentialism is that the consequences of actions are crucial in determining their morality.

General Notes on Ethical Approaches

• Each ethical approach can be seen as a genus encompassing various specific theories.

  • Examples of consequentialist theories include:

  • Utilitarianism

  • Buddhism

  • Moism

  • Ethical Egoism

  • Kavarkas

• Each of these theories emphasizes the outcomes of actions to assess their rightness or wrongness.

Building Blocks of Consequentialist Theories

1. Account of Value

   • Defines what is considered fundamentally good, often referred to as utility.

   • Different accounts of value may include:

     • Hedonism (Pleasure and Pain)

     • Friendship

     • Love

     • Beauty

     • Others, justified by their fundamental value.

2. Account of Scope

   • Defines who or what the theory applies to, such as:

     • Everything

     • A specific individual

     • Individuals sharing certain characteristics beneficial to the account of value.

3. Account of Aggregation

   • Discusses how value is distributed, which may include:

     • Maximizing: Aim for the greatest total value.

     • Minimizing: Avoid bad outcomes or minimal bad actions.

     • Good Enough Distributions: Ensure equitable or satisfactory levels of value across individuals.

Classical Utilitarianism

Ideal Answers from Classical Utilitarianism:

1. Account of Value:

   • Pleasure is the fundamental good, while pain is regarded as the fundamental bad.

2. Account of Scope:

   • Universal account applying to anyone or anything that can feel pleasure or suffer pain.

3. Account of Aggregation:

   • A maximizing aggregation, pursuing the highest balance of pleasure over pain.

Maximization Principle

• The classic formulation of utilitarianism states: In any situation, aim to bring about the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for all affected.

Objections to Classical Utilitarianism

• Several objections highlight potential difficulties with classical utilitarianism; however, none decisively refute it.

  • These concerns allow for refinement of the theory.

1. Self-Effacing Objection

   • If a follower of utilitarianism fully understands the theory, they might abandon it due to the complexity of calculating implications for each action.

   • Example: The long-term implications of choosing to learn guitar versus not learning are unpredictable and complex.

   • Critics argue this could lead to inefficient resource use compared to simpler decision-making approaches.

   • Response: Utilitarians can adopt rules of thumb for efficient utility maximization.

2. Demandingness Objection

   • Classical utilitarianism is deemed overly demanding due to its singular focus on maximizing utility in every situation.

   • Example: Choosing between learning guitar and playing league shows the moral obligation to determine which action maximizes utility, potentially leading to a morally simplistic universe devoid of morally neutral actions.

   • Comparison: Standard ethical views often recognize a grey moral area where some actions are good but not obligatory (e.g., charity work).

   • Alternative: Consider a generous approach where “satisficing” (ensuring enough utility) allows more flexibility.

3. Containers of Value Objection

   • This critique implies classical utilitarianism fails to regard individuals as valuable in themselves, viewing them only as bearers of value (e.g., pleasure and absence of pain).

   • The implication allows for morally troubling scenarios such as sacrificing one person's happiness for another's greater happiness (trading off utility).

4. Justice Objection

   • This objection centers on classical utilitarianism's potential to justify sacrificing individual interests for greater overall benefit.

   • Scenario: A police commissioner might consider torturing an innocent person (grandmother) to extract information from a captured terrorist to save lives. The thought leads to morally objectionable outcomes without just cause.

   • Implications question moral justifications of collective harm for greater good.

   • Utilitarian responses may include:

     • Arguing that general policies against certain actions (like torturing innocents) won't maximize utility and may lead to broader societal distrust and unhappiness.

     • Shifting moral perspectives by hypothetical secretive torture scenarios, lessening broader negative impacts.

     • Advocating for rule utilitarianism which mitigates against unjust acts by establishing general prohibitions against harmful practices.

     • Holding the position that despite moral intuitions against actions like torture, a full ethical framework could justify them in specific contexts (J. D. C. Smart’s perspective).

Conclusion on Consequentialism

• While classical utilitarianism faces several challenges, it remains a robust ethical theory.

• These objections serve not as definitive refutations but as prompts for deeper exploration and refinement of the consequentialist framework.

• Consider these issues as intellectual exercises that strengthen understanding of consequentialism rather than irreconcilable flaws in its fundamental principles.

Utilitarianism is a specific type of consequentialism, which is a broader ethical theory. While both emphasize that the consequences of actions are critical in determining their morality, utilitarianism holds that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or pleasure. In contrast, consequentialism encompasses various theories that evaluate actions based on their outcomes, which could include utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and more.