Shafer-Landau

John Wesley (1703-91) succinctly encapsulated the philosophy of doing good:
- "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can."
This philosophy emphasizes humane activity and altruism, asserting that our purpose on earth is to produce as much good as possible for others beyond our own needs.
Consequentialism is defined by the motto: "do as much good as you can."
It requires prioritizing the betterment of others and the world at large.

Moral theories must account for the necessity of doing good; G. E. Moore (1873–1958) argued:
- Morality is established since actions producing the most good are right.
- Choosing an option that results in less good cannot be justified.
The essence of morality, for consequentialists, is to induce more good than harm through our actions.

Examines the moral dimensions of capital punishment, split into two paradigms:
1. Consequentialist Perspective: This camp asserts the death penalty is justifiable only if it yields positive outcomes (e.g., reducing crime).
  - Key questions include:
  - What benefits does capital punishment provide?
  - What are its downsides?
  - Which policy offers the best cost-benefit analysis?
2. Retributive Justice Perspective: Focused on deserving punishment for past actions, regardless of the future consequences.
  - Individuals should face punishment if morally deserving, even if it does not produce overall good.
Consequentialism stresses forward-thinking, contrasting with perspectives that emphasize justice based on past actions.
The central tenet of consequentialism is evaluating the results of actions—"the ends justify the means."

An action is morally required if it produces the best overall results (optimific).
Determining whether an action is optimific involves a five-step method:
1. Identify intrinsic goods, which are valuable in themselves (e.g., happiness, autonomy).
2. Identify intrinsic bads, which are harmful in themselves (e.g., pain, mental anguish).
3. Assess all options available.
4. Evaluate each option based on the degree of good and bad results it produces.
5. Choose the action that achieves the best balance of good over bad results.
Consequentialism encompasses various theories depending on what is deemed intrinsically valuable. The discussion primarily focuses on act utilitarianism, which posits:
- Right actions are those that maximize overall well-being.

Act utilitarianism predicates morality on well-being as the singular intrinsic value.
The view affirms that goodness correlates to maximizing happiness while minimizing suffering.
Misunderstandings of the principle:
- First Misunderstanding: It wrongly assumes that we must benefit the greatest number of people.
- Example scenario: Spending funds on a small group that benefits greatly versus a larger group that benefits insignificantly.
- Second Misunderstanding: It incorrectly asserts the need to achieve the greatest total happiness, ignoring poorer outcomes that may accompany it.
- Example scenario: Comparing gladiatorial contests that create happiness versus athletic games achieving a better balance of happiness and unhappiness.
The correct interpretation emphasizes achieving the best overall situation, considering the balance of happiness.

Utilitarianism assesses actions based on their actual rather than expected results.
This contrasts with expectations where individuals predict the morality of actions based on anticipated outcomes.
Noteworthy complexities in moral knowledge:
- Actual Results: Evaluated after the action takes place; requires historical context to assess morality.
- Expected Results: Allows individuals to judge morality before outcomes unfold but risks justifying harmful actions based on good intentions.

Utilitarianism differentiates between actions and intentions:
- Actions: Right if they yield optimal results.
- Intentions: Morally good if expected to result in positive outcomes.
Instances where good intentions lead to negative results can complicate moral judgment:
- Example: Helping a stranger across the street leading to accidental harm.

A core strength of utilitarianism lies in its impartiality, valuing all individuals equally irrespective of personal attributes.
Historical impacts include challenges against slavery and gender inequality, with utilitarianism advocating equality and expanding moral considerations to all beings affected by actions.

Utilitarianism often reinforces intuitive moral beliefs:
- Acts branded as immoral (e.g., slavery, rape) cause more harm than good, timely aligning with utilitarian criticism.
- Depicts moral virtues as character traits that drive beneficial actions.

Utilitarianism effectively resolves moral dilemmas by providing clear guidance with its singular principle of maximizing well-being.
Example scenario: Deciding whether to disclose harmful gossip about a friend, weighing overall well-being against honesty.

Utilitarianism permits flexibility to change moral rules when rigid adherence does not enhance overall welfare.
Example: The Donner party's ethical dilemma emphasizes the necessity of pragmatic moral decision-making in extreme circumstances.

Utilitarianism includes nonhuman animals within the moral community based on their capacity to suffer.
Jeremy Bentham's principle highlights that moral considerations should not differentiate based on reasoning or communication abilities, but rather on the ability to experience suffering.
Argument from Marginal Cases:
- Connects the moral standing of marginal human beings with that of nonhuman animals, advocating equal treatment based on suffering capacity.

Utilitarianism emphasizes equal consideration, suggesting that moral significance should extend beyond human beings to all who are capable of suffering.
Addressing the debate on species membership in ethics forces examination of moral community criteria.
Overall, utilitarianism provides a compelling framework that prioritizes welfare while challenging traditional moral confines.

Explore the differences between act utilitarianism and ethical egoism, debating plausibility.
Clarify optimific actions and the nuances surrounding them in terms of happiness.
Analyze the correspondence between moral intent and outcomes within utilitarian ethics.