Consequentialism

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Assuming that some actions are right and others are wrong*, is some form of consequentialism the best way to determine which actions are which? Consequentialism is the view that the consequences of actions are what make them right/wrong, or good/bad. So to put it very simply, actions with good consequences are right, and actions with bad consequences are wrong.

This seems like a sensible way to conceive of rightness or wrongness... perhaps the only sensible way. Do you agree? Are consequences (including both immediate and long-term consequences) the only relevant factors in determining whether something is morally acceptable? Or could an action be wrong even if it didn't produce any bad consequences?

I hardly know anything about this theory, so if anyone can elaborate, please do. According to wikipedia, alternative theories include deontology (rightness/wrongness determined by the nature of the act itself) and virtue ethics
(rightness/wrongness determined by what the act tells us about the agent's character). Can those compete with consequentialism, or are they just implausible hangovers from Christianity?

Before Chai asks, yes this thread does have something to do with my arguments in the 'age of consent' thread. Also, if nightrider starts a thread called 'consequentialism ends in meaningless', the consequences for him will be fatal!

---
*I personally don't believe that actions are ever right or wrong, but I am aware that most people do and I am interested in what such people believe about 'rightness' and 'wrongness', and also in what would be true if certain actions were 'right' and others 'wrong'.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,115 • Replies: 13

No top replies

I think that, for systems of morality, some form of consequentialism is unavoidable. It is not really possible to consider an act without, at the same time, considering its possible consequences. Indeed, it isn't really possible to imagine a conseqence-less act.

For instance, whether one thinks that lying is wrong because it has bad consequences, because it is inutile, because it offends God, or because it contravenes the Kantian categorical imperative, one is putting at least some weight on the consequential aspects of the act of lying. Kant, for instance, is rarely considered a consequentialist, but his consequentialism is just located at the level of the universal rule rather than the immediate consequences of the act itself (i.e. Kant would say that lying is wrong because the consequences of adopting lying as a universal law would lead to an insoluble contradiction).

Of course, there's still a big difference between, e.g., Kant's consequentialism and Bentham's consequentialism.

0 Replies

That's a good point, but as I understand it, consequentialism is about consequent events, or causal consequences. You could say that doing something wrong has the 'consequence' of contradicting a moral rule, but that consequence isn't an event which is caused by the action.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

That's a good point, but as I understand it, consequentialism is about consequent events, or causal consequences.

Yes, that's the generally accepted definition. My point is that no one can ignore consequences when formulating a system of morality.

agrote wrote:

You could say that doing something wrong has the 'consequence' of contradicting a moral rule, but that consequence isn't an event which is caused by the action.

Saying that an action is immoral because it leads to immoral consequences is merely begging the question.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

agrote wrote:
That's a good point, but as I understand it, consequentialism is about consequent events, or causal consequences.

Yes, that's the generally accepted definition. My point is that no one can ignore consequences when formulating a system of morality.

But Kant was not, as you implied, a consequentialist. And inutility is not an event that follows certain actions. And do religious people believe that actions are wrong because they offend God? Or that they offend God because they're wrong? I'm never sure.

Quote:

agrote wrote:
You could say that doing something wrong has the 'consequence' of contradicting a moral rule, but that consequence isn't an event which is caused by the action.

Saying that an action is immoral because it leads to immoral consequences is merely begging the question.

I guess it is. Isn't that the nature of all the examples of supposed consequentialism that you lsited?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

But Kant was not, as you implied, a consequentialist.

As I said, Kant was not that kind of "consequentialist." But he still had to take consequences of actions into account. That was my point.

agrote wrote:

And inutility is not an event that follows certain actions.

Are you suggesting that utilitarians are not "consequentialists" (in the classical sense of the term)?

agrote wrote:

And do religious people believe that actions are wrong because they offend God? Or that they offend God because they're wrong? I'm never sure.

Plato might be able to answer that. Or maybe not.

agrote wrote:

Quote:
Saying that an action is immoral because it leads to immoral consequences is merely begging the question.

I guess it is. Isn't that the nature of all the examples of supposed consequentialism that you lsited?

No. For a utilitarian, e.g., a consequence is inutile, not immoral. It is, however, immoral to act in a fashion that leads to inutile consequences.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

agrote wrote:
But Kant was not, as you implied, a consequentialist.

As I said, Kant was not that kind of "consequentialist." But he still had to take consequences of actions into account. That was my point.

Okay.

Quote:

agrote wrote:
And inutility is not an event that follows certain actions.

Are you suggesting that utilitarians are not "consequentialists" (in the classical sense of the term)?

As I understand it, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. But I wasn't aware that utilitarians call inutile actions 'wrong' (I've never studied normative ethics).

Quote:

agrote wrote:
Quote:
Saying that an action is immoral because it leads to immoral consequences is merely begging the question.

I guess it is. Isn't that the nature of all the examples of supposed consequentialism that you lsited?

No. For a utilitarian, e.g., a consequence is inutile, not immoral. It is, however, immoral to act in a fashion that leads to inutile consequences.

But utilitarianism actually is a consequentialist theory. I think that Kantian or religious ethics would fall into another category... they seem to be more concerned either with the (non-consequential) nature of the actions themselves, or with the character of the moral agent. As far as I know, categorical imperatives say that certain actions are 'just wrong'. Not wrong because they cause harm, and we don't want to cause harm, but wrong because they just are. Is that right? And, say, Christian ethics are definitely anti-consequentialist... Jesus told off one of his disciples (I forget the name) for denying that he knew Jesus. But the consequences of that action were entirely beneficial... they saved the man's life.

So, my question: Are there any viable alternatives to true consequentialism? Can any of this other crap compete with it?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

As I understand it, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. But I wasn't aware that utilitarians call inutile actions 'wrong' (I've never studied normative ethics).

For utilitarians, an action is "right" insofar as it promotes utility and "wrong" insofar as it promotes disutility.

agrote wrote:

But utilitarianism actually is a consequentialist theory. I think that Kantian or religious ethics would fall into another category... they seem to be more concerned either with the (non-consequential) nature of the actions themselves, or with the character of the moral agent.

This is my last word on this particular subject: I don't dispute that utilitarianism is consequentialist. I also don't dispute that Kant and Augustine, e.g., are not "consequentialists" as that term is usually employed. All moral systems, however, must deal somehow with the consequences of actions. If I haven't made myself clear to you by now, then I am afraid I never will.

agrote wrote:

So, my question: Are there any viable alternatives to true consequentialism? Can any of this other crap compete with it?

If the term "consequentialism" is confined to "pure" consequentialist systems, like act utilitarianism, then yes, there are viable alternatives to consequentialism.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

agrote wrote:
But utilitarianism actually is a consequentialist theory. I think that Kantian or religious ethics would fall into another category... they seem to be more concerned either with the (non-consequential) nature of the actions themselves, or with the character of the moral agent.

This is my last word on this particular subject: I don't dispute that utilitarianism is consequentialist. I also don't dispute that Kant and Augustine, e.g., are not "consequentialists" as that term is usually employed. All moral systems, however, must deal somehow with the consequences of actions. If I haven't made myself clear to you by now, then I am afraid I never will.

All clear. Sorry, I have a tendency to be quite pedantic... I just wanted to be sure about what you were saying. It turns out you weren't saying anything that I have a problem with.

Quote:

If the term "consequentialism" is confined to "pure" consequentialist systems, like act utilitarianism, then yes, there are viable alternatives to consequentialism.

Like what?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Quote:
If the term "consequentialism" is confined to "pure" consequentialist systems, like act utilitarianism, then yes, there are viable alternatives to consequentialism.

Like what?

Aristotelian virtue ethics. The Kantian categorical imperative. The Rawlsian original position. Christian absolutist morality. Humean "morality as social mores." The list is practically endless.

Pure consequentialism, such as act utilitarianism, is hopeless as a system of morality -- a fact recognized by most utilitarians, who prefer rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism. For one thing, pure consequentialism does not offer a reliable guide on which people can shape their actions. If, for instance, lying is only wrong if the consequences of that an act of lying are inutile, how am I to know if lying is wrong in this instance if I can't confidently predict the consequences? Furthermore, how far removed from the act must I predict those consequences? If I lie to get out of a luncheon with an annoying relative, but, through a series of unforeseeable events, that lie causes a serious injury to someone unknown to me, was my action moral or immoral? Non-consequentialist systems of morality avoid those problems.

0 Replies

Surely rule utilitarianism is a consequentialist system?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Surely rule utilitarianism is a consequentialist system?

It is to a certain extent, but not to the same extent as act utilitarianism. An act utilitarian would say, for instance: "lying is neither right nor wrong in itself. It is only right or wrong to the extent that it produces utility." A rule utilitarian, in response, would say: "we can confidently say that lying is nearly always wrong, because it nearly always produces disutility. So we can adopt a rule that lying is wrong even if we don't know the consequences of a particular act of lying." That, to my mind, is one important step removed from pure consequentialism.

0 Replies

Of course a lie can produce disutililty for the deceived and utility for the deceiver. No absolute there. I feel that since we can never predict the consequence of an act with certainty nor even with high probability often I would favor a rule prescribing good intentions at least.

0 Replies

Yeah, I like the idea of rule utilitarianism, or 'rule sonsequentialism' as I had heard it called (or is that a different thing?). It's probably more pragmatic than act utilitarianism, and the focus is still on the consequences of actions rather than more traditional ideas of 'good' and 'evil'.

0 Replies

Consequentialism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know