The Flaw in Pure Consequentialism

However, such an argument would imply that the ethical merit of an action is also determined by the intention of the agent. Therefore pure consequentialism has contradicted itself.

I imagine that a pure consequentialist would claim that the agent's intentions are themselves a result of causal relations between things--neurons and synapses and what have you.

I've never quite understood the relationship between consequentialism and ethics (or, more generally, emotions). Theists often play this card on materialists (those who believe that everything in the universe can be explained in terms of causal relations between objects, which seems more or less like what you're describing as consequentialism): the claim is that materialists believe human beings are "merely" a collection of atoms, and that, therefore, there can be no such thing as love since (1) love too becomes reduced to "just" a relationship of particles, robbing it of its emotional essence and (2) even if we grant that love is a legitimately felt emotion, to apply to something that is "just" a collection of atoms is to rob love of its true meaning. Neither of those has ever made much sense to me; I don't see how materialism dictates the way you treat things.

The argument of consequence being all that matters in determining the ethical status of an action, is false because one cannot judge whether an action A, will result in the best results as you would not only have to consider the result of B, but also the result C as a consequence of B, and so on.

The argument of consequence being all that matters in determining the ethical status of an action, is false because one cannot judge whether an action A, will result in the best results as you would not only have to consider the result of B, but also the result C as a consequence of B, and so on.

A consequentialist could argue that an action is ethical if you do what you think will produce the best result regardless of the limit of your knowledge. However, such an argument would imply that the ethical merit of an action is also determined by the intention of the agent. Therefore pure consequentialism has contradicted itself.

How so? The ethical merit of an action is often determined by the intention of the agent. For instance, if I hit you over the head with a two-by-four intending to injure you, but instead I cure you of your amnesia, is my action good or bad? I would expect that most people -- including utilitarians -- would judge it to be bad, even though it had beneficial consequences, solely because the motives were bad. When someone is slicing you open with a knife, it makes a morally significant difference whether the blade is wielded by a murderer or a surgeon.

That's merely a practical consideration, not an ethical one. If actions are judged by their reasonably foreseeable consequences, it's not necessary to take into consideration all of the potential long-range consequences.

To utilitarians such as Bentham, that would be an immoral action because hitting a person in the head reduced the amount of happiness, because the person felt the pain. His theory does not consider the intention of the person.

I'm not sure how Mill would think of this, but I was showing how consequences of an action is not the only thing that gives an action a moral value, and it would be absurd to think that it is.

Yeah, that was leading up to my rejection of pure consequentialism. It was also intended to show how it is impossible and ridiculous to judge the merit of an action purely by its consequences, because you would have to put a limit somewhere.

What you are describing, though, is pure act utilitarianism, which is a minority position even among utilitarians.

If your goal is to attack act utilitarianism, you've set your goals fairly low.

Why can't limits be drawn?

Quote:

Why can't limits be drawn?

It can, but if it is drawn, then it would refute the whole theory behind a purely consequential ethics.

The argument of consequence being all that matters in determining the ethical status of an action, is false because one cannot judge whether an action A, will result in the best results as you would not only have to consider the result of B, but also the result C as a consequence of B, and so on.

A consequentialist could argue that an action is ethical if you do what you think will produce the best result regardless of the limit of your knowledge. However, such an argument would imply that the ethical merit of an action is also determined by the intention of the agent.

You still haven't explained why limits can't be drawn. Just because consequences have consequences doesn't mean that consequentialism is impossible.

Even if one cannot calculate in detail all the consequences of ones actions, one can make probablistic assumptions about them, and make one's decisions on that basis. Hence, the reasons for reaching your decision will be imperfect, but they will still be consequentialist.

A probabilistic assumptions about the chain of results in a possible infinite time is almost impossible.

Why not? We do it all the time. I agree our assumptions usually aren't perfect -- but this means that we make mistakes, not that we act immorally.