7 - Module 3 Consequentialism

• instead of saying things are good or bad, instead, look at the potential effects

• Consequentialism and other Ethical Theories

  • Its basically about how the consequences r the fundamental morally relevant consideration in making moral judgments

• Deontology - an action is morally good if it is done in conformity with a good rule

• Virtual ethics - the character of agents is the fundamentally morally relevant consideration in making moral judgments

Hedonism

• Pleasure is the only inherent good

Non-hedonism rejects hedonism in 2 ways:

• exclusive non hedonism - pleasure isn’t inherently good, something else (power, preference-satisfaction, and others)

• inclusive non hedonism pleasure is inherently good but there are others (power, preference-satisfaction, and others)

1. Agent relative hedonism - an action is morally good if it promotes own pleasure

   • active hedonism - agent’s immediate pleasures r primary

   • passive hedonism - agent’s long lasting though non immediate pleasures r primary

2. Agent relative non hedonism - an action is morally good if it promotes agent’s own intrinsic good which is not necessarily pleasure

• dont use consequentialism for final report

Utilitarianism and its Basic Forms

• Utilitarianism - an action is morally good if it maximizes the overall welfare of affected persons

3 Basic Features

• Consequentialist

• Welfarist

• Aggregationist

Hedonistic Utilitarianism

• the overall welfare to be maximized through our actions pertains only to pleasure or happiness

  • Quantitative HU

  • Qualitative HU

The Hedonistic Calculus

Non Hedonistic Utilitarianism

• The overall welfare to be maximized through our actions is either not pleasure or not limited to such

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

• Act U - ex when ure supposed to pay someone 6K but u pay charity instead

• Rule U - ex when u promise to pay1B to a kpop group instead of donating to the needy

  • sticks to the rules too much

June 2, 2025

• On June 9, we can consult but thru email

MODULE 4: Deontology I

• Divine Command Theory

  • meta-ethical theory that posits that an action is morally good or bad because it is commanded or prohibited by God

  • strong - the sole basis of morality is God’s will

    • “if there is no God, everything is permissible.”

    • 3 assumptions:

      1. morality originates with God

      2. moral rightness simple means willed by God

      3. no further reasons or justification are needed for morality

  • weak - omits or qualifies one or two of the three theses

    • teleological suspension of the ethical

    • morality has an independent foundation in reason. but if God’s commands conflict with the act, His commands override

      • ex. Abraham was askd by God to sacrifice his son

  • Criticisms of DCT

    • How do we know what God wills?

    • theory may lead to moral arbitrariness

    • criticizes our autonomy as rational beings: what is our reason for if we are bound to conform to God’s commands

• Natural Law Theory

  • morality is part of the natrual order of things

  • if something is “unnatural”, it is immoral

    • ex. when a rock is thrown, it is immoral as a rock is supposed to be on the ground, not in the air

  • Major proponents

    • the stoics

    • thomas aquinas - tried to check human nature within instead of outside

      • align your actions with the natural order of things

  • Moral Absolutism and qualifying principles

    • NLT claims actions r always wrong

    • NLT appeals to principles:

      • principle of forfeiture - person threatens life of an innocent person

      • principle of double effect - sometimes its permissible to do a good act despite bad consequences

• Principle of Double Effect Elaborated

  • When an act has a good and bad effect, the act is good if:

    1. act in itself apart from its consequences is good

    2. the bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves good effect

• when youre utilitarian, u won’t see the intent. you only see the effect

• with double effect, you do not compare the happiness counts. they are counted as incomparable. ex. the nita situation, u are not justified to torture her as it is still wrong even if it will save 1k lives.