Consequentialism: Maximizing Goodness

• Consequentialism posits that actions are morally right if they maximize goodness in the world.
• Actions should aim to do as much good as possible.

G.E. Moore's View

• G.E. Moore supported consequentialism, asserting that choosing a less good option over a better one is wrong.
• Morality should focus on doing good.

Capital Punishment Debate

• Consequentialists justify the death penalty if it improves life by reducing crime and increasing security.
• They consider its benefits, drawbacks, and cost-benefit ratio
• The policy with the best cost-benefit ratio is morally required.
• Nonconsequentialists argue for the death penalty based on whether criminals deserve to die
• Justice is prioritized over happiness and reducing misery.
• Consequentialists focus on the future consequences of actions.
• The ends can justify the means if the ends are good enough.
• Actions are morally required if they yield better results than other options.

Determining Optimific Actions

• Optimific actions produce the best overall results.
• There are five steps to determine if an action is optimific:
• Identify what is intrinsically good.
• Identify what is intrinsically bad.
• Determine all available actions.
• Determine the value of each action's results.
• Choose the action with the greatest net balance of good over bad.

Variations of Consequentialism

• Versions depend on what is considered intrinsically valuable. Ethical egoism considers self-interest as intrinsically valuable.
• Actions are right if they improve environmental health, world peace, or knowledge.

Act Utilitarianism

• Well-being is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable, and faring poorly is the only thing that is intrinsically bad
• Actions are morally required if they maximize overall well-being more than any other action in the circumstances. This is known as the "principle of utility."
• Types of utilitarians include hedonists and desire satisfaction theorists.
• An action is right if it maximizes overall well-being.

Maximizing Goodness

• John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism promotes the greatest good for the greatest number.
• Mill was a hedonist, viewing happiness as intrinsically valuable and misery as intrinsically bad.
• The ultimate moral principle should be to maximize happiness over misery.
• Actions don’t necessarily have to benefit the greatest number of people, but should create the greatest amount of happiness.
• The greatest net balance of happiness should be considered, not only total happiness.

Moral Knowledge

• Actions are right based on their results, regardless of how long the results take to occur.
• Consequences, both short-lived and long-term, matter.
• To know which action is right, consider:
• Actual results.
• Expected results.
• No moral theory demands knowing all future results.

Actual Versus Expected Results

• Focusing on actual results is the standard view.
• Focusing on expected results is the non-standard view
• Actions are morally required if they are reasonably expected to be optimific.
• Helping someone cross the street and then they are killed by a car highlights the difference in perspective
• Terrible actual results would make the action immoral.
• If helping the person was reasonably expected to be safe, the action was moral.
• There are two reasons for focusing on actual results:
• Actions with expected good results can have terrible actual results.
• Actions with expected bad results can have good actual results.

Assessing Actions and Intentions

• Judge actions based on actual results (classical utilitarianism).
• Intentions are morally good if they reasonably expect good results.
• The utilitarian approach separates the assessment of intentions from the evaluation of actions.
• Actions are right if they are optimific.
• Intentions are morally good if they reasonably expect good results.
• Intending something bad but maximizing well-being is immoral and blameworthy.
• Intending something good but failing is praiseworthy.
• Actions are optimific based on actual results, not expected results. Actions are immoral if they fail to maximize well-being.

Attractions of Utilitarianism - Impartiality

• Impartiality means being non-biased, non-prejudiced, and not privileging anyone/anything.
• Utilitarianism is impartial because each individual's welfare is equally valuable.
• Everyone’s well-being counts equally, regardless of who or what they are.
• To be moral, one must extend the moral outlook beyond oneself.
• The well-being of all must be considered.

Justifying Conventional Moral Wisdom

• Utilitarianism addresses issues such as the abolition of slavery, sexual equality, and animal welfare.
• Much of our moral views are correct, and utilitarianism justifies our basic moral beliefs
• Utilitarianism condemns things that do more harm than good.
• It endorses things that are beneficial.
• Virtues promote flourishing and reduce misery, while vices harm others
• A moral theory should confirm our deepest moral beliefs, but no theory does this perfectly
• There is good reason to select a moral theory that confirms our deepest moral beliefs.

Conflict Resolution

• Utilitarianism has one rule: maximize well-being for the greatest number, which can resolve conflicts.
• Utilitarianism can advise against truthfulness if it harms others.
• Telling the truth does not always increase overall well-being.
• Utilitarian view of justice is superior to other views.
• Taxation should be just, based on whatever maximizes well-being.

Moral Flexibility

• Only the utility principle is absolute.
• It is okay to morally violate a rule if the result is maximized well-being.
• Utilitarianism is morally flexible; the difficulty is knowing when exceptions are allowable.
• The goal is always to maximize well-being for the greatest number.

Scope of the Moral Community

• Morality extends to animals, who are members of the moral community.
• Duties are owed to animals.
• The needs of every member must be taken into account.
• Animals matter because they can suffer.
• Moral importance is based on the ability to experience pain.
• Actions causing needless suffering are immoral.
• Suffering animal experimentation is justified if it maximizes overall well-being.
• Hurting a human is not worse than causing the same harm to an animal.

Argument from Marginal Cases

• If it is immoral to kill, eat, and experiment on "marginal" humans, then it is immoral to treat non-human animals this way.
• A "marginal" human has a mental life no more developed than that of non-human animals.
• There is no relevant characteristic that shows that humans are superior to animals.
• All deserve equal treatment because all can suffer.
• Those who claim they can eat animals because they are inferior, would have to eat and experiment on "marginal" humans, to be consistent.
• Since most people don’t want to eat and experiment on “marginal” humans because doing so would cause pain, and lessen overall well-being, then they also shouldn’t do so to non-human animals.

Defending Eating and Experimenting on Animals

• To claim that nonhuman animals are unable to reason in the way humans do is problematic because some animals are able to reason.
• People try to justify excluding nonhuman animals from the moral community
• By using the ability to communicate.
• By using the ability to have emotions.
• By using the ability to elicit sympathy from others.
• By using the ability to be self-aware.
• By using the ability to be self-governing (autonomous).
• By using the ability to assert claims on one’s behalf.
• By using the ability to think about and plan for one’s future.
• However, there are nonhuman animals who are able to do these things, and there are “marginal” humans who can’t do these things, and there are “normal” humans who don’t do these things.
• Defending eating and experimenting on animals by referring to God's will relies on faith and belief.
• To say, “only humans do,” then the issue arises concerning what do you mean by “human?”
• Any attempt to find a reason to justify the superiority of humans ends up being arbitrary.
• It must be shown why nonhumans do not matter.

Slippery Slope Arguments

• A slippery slope argument argues that an opponent's claim will lead to devastating results, without evidence.
• Slippery slope arguments lack evidence.
• The metaphor is that a tiny step from safety will lead to a fall into disaster.
• Two essential elements:
• A prediction that serious, avoidable harm will occur if a new policy or practice is allowed.
• The utilitarian requirement to minimize harm and maximize well-being.
• To weaken the effect of a slippery slope, show that there is a lack of evidence.
• Show that predictions are not supported.
• Show how such claims are often used to reflecting prejudice and further entrenching ignorance
• Such arguments make predictions and toy with our emotions, worries, and fears.
• People opposed to voluntary active euthanasia claim that there is a lack of evidence that shows it won’t lead to disaster.
• Supporters say how we will only ever know the benefits of such practices if we allow them