Chapter-3-Consequentialism.pdf

DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.p...

DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified ETHICS UNIT 2 – ETHICAL THEORIES CHAPTER 3 – CONSEQUENTIALISM A. UNDERSTANDING CONSEQUENTIALISM Consequentialism is one of the influential ethical theories. Its general claim is that the consequences of an action are the ones that ultimately matter in judging whether the action is morally good or bad. The morality of an action, according to this ethical theory, is solely determined by the kind of consequences that the performance of the action leads to. To better understand what is unique about this claim, let us examine how it differs from the claims of the two other equally influential ethical theories, namely deontology and virtue ethics. In addition, let us clarify a concept critical in the understanding of its claim: the concept of the intrinsic good. Not all consequences are deemed morally relevant by consequentialism- only those that involve an intrinsic good. A THEORY OF ETHICS Three Aspects of Moral Evaluation When evaluating the morality of an action, three aspects are generally considered: 1. Consequences: An action is morally good if it results in good or desirable outcomes, such as promoting pleasure, fulfilling desires, or improving well-being. This approach is evident in arguments like legalizing the death penalty to deter crime or protecting the environment to prevent human extinction. 2. Rules: An action is morally good if it follows a good rule or avoids violating one. A good rule may be rational, divinely willed, respectful of rights, or aligned with natural order. For instance, abortion might be considered morally wrong because it violates the moral law against killing. 3. Character: An action is morally good if it aligns with the character of a virtuous person. For example, helping someone in need is morally right because compassion is a trait of a virtuous person. Conflicts and Ethical Theories These three aspects often align, but conflicts can arise, such as when an action that leads to good consequences violates a good rule or when a virtuous person’s action doesn’t produce good results. For instance, telling the truth is generally good, but it might not always lead to good outcomes. When conflicts occur, the question arises: which aspect is fundamental? The different answers to this question give rise to three ethical theories: Consequentialism: Prioritizes consequences. An action is morally good if it produces the right consequences, regardless of rules or the agent’s character. Deontology: Prioritizes rules. An action’s morality depends on whether it follows the correct rules, independent of its consequences or the agent’s character. Virtue Ethics: Prioritizes character. An action is morally good if it reflects a virtuous character, regardless of its consequences or the rules it follows. In each theory, the fundamental aspect not only determines moral goodness but also explains the relevance of the other aspects. For example, in consequentialism, good rules and character traits are valued because they lead to good consequences. The differences between these theories highlight the unique focus of each approach to ethics. INSTRINSIC AND INSTRUMENTAL GOOD 1  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Consequentialism bases the moral goodness of an action on the intrinsic goodness of its consequences, meaning they are good in themselves and desired for their own sake. J.J.C. Smart defines consequentialism as a theory where the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined solely by the intrinsic goodness or badness of its outcomes. Intrinsic goods, such as happiness, are valued for their own sake, unlike instrumental goods, which are desired as means to achieve other goods. Intrinsic goods are inherently good, always desirable, and remain good regardless of whether they are actually desired. In contrast, instrumental goods derive their value from their ability to lead to other goods, making them conditionally good. According to consequentialism, our moral duty is to maximize intrinsic goods. For example, if happiness is intrinsically good, then we should strive to achieve the greatest possible happiness. This leads to several principles: 1. An action resulting in good consequences is morally better than one with bad consequences. 2. Between two actions with good outcomes, the one with greater good is morally superior. 3. Between two actions with bad outcomes, the one with lesser bad consequences is morally better. 4. Between two actions with mixed outcomes, the one with a greater net good is morally preferable. To determine the morally good action, one calculates the aggregate good by subtracting the total bad consequences from the total good consequences of each action. B. VARIETIES OF CONSEQUENTIALISM While all consequentialists agree that our moral duty is to maximize an intrinsic good through the consequences of our actions, they disagree on what constitutes this intrinsic good. Happiness is often cited as an intrinsic good, but not all consequentialists agree on this point. Furthermore, there is debate about whether the happiness that matters is solely the agent's own or includes the happiness of others. Key Questions in Consequentialism 1. Is pleasure (or happiness) the only intrinsic good? Hedonistic Consequentialism: Yes, pleasure is the only intrinsic good, and pain is the only intrinsic bad. Non-Hedonistic Consequentialism: No, other intrinsic goods exist beyond pleasure. 2. Is the agent's own intrinsic good the only one that morally matters? Agent-Relative Consequentialism: Yes, only the agent's own intrinsic good matters. Agent-Neutral Consequentialism: No, the intrinsic goods of others also matter. Hedonistic Consequentialism Hedonism, a type of consequentialism, holds that pleasure is the only intrinsic good, and pain the only intrinsic bad. Proponents like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill argue that the morality of an action is judged by its ability to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Non-Hedonistic Consequentialism In response to criticisms of hedonism, non-hedonistic consequentialism emerged. It rejects the idea that pleasure is the only intrinsic good: Exclusive Non-Hedonism: Denies that pleasure is an intrinsic good, suggesting other goods like power or desire-satisfaction. Inclusive Non-Hedonism: Accepts pleasure as an intrinsic good but also recognizes other intrinsic goods such as knowledge, freedom, beauty, and healthy relationships. AGENT RELATIVITY AND NEUTRALITY 2  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified In evaluating the morality of an action, agent-relative consequentialism (or egoistic consequentialism) focuses solely on the consequences that affect the welfare of the person performing the action. In contrast, agent-neutral consequentialism (or impartial consequentialism) considers the consequences for everyone affected by the action, giving equal weight to each person's well-being. Agent-Relative Consequentialism: Only the agent's own happiness or welfare matters in determining the morality of an action. Agent-Neutral Consequentialism: The happiness or welfare of all individuals affected by the action is considered, with no one’s well-being prioritized over others. For example, if Mario has three options: Option X: Brings pleasure only to Mario. Option Y: Brings pleasure only to Juan. Option Z: Brings pleasure to both Lito and Bong. Agent-relative consequentialism would recommend Option X, as it benefits Mario. However, agent- neutral consequentialism would suggest choosing the option that maximizes overall pleasure, regardless of who benefits most. This approach focuses on maximizing the aggregate good, promoting the greatest happiness among all involved. COMPLEX FORMS AND REPRESENTATIVES Consequentialism can be divided into two main distinctions: hedonistic vs. non-hedonistic and agent- relative vs. agent-neutral. These distinctions combine to form four complex forms of consequentialism: 1. Agent-Relative Hedonism: An action is morally good if it maximizes pleasure for the agent alone. 2. Agent-Neutral Hedonism: An action is morally good if it maximizes overall pleasure for everyone involved. 3. Agent-Relative Non-Hedonism: An action is morally good if it maximizes benefits for the agent, where "benefits" may or may not include pleasure. 4. Agent-Neutral Non-Hedonism: An action is morally good if it maximizes overall benefits for everyone involved. Agent-Relative Hedonism Aristippus and Epicurus are key proponents of agent-relative hedonism. Both believe that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and pain the only intrinsic evil, with the agent’s pleasure being the sole criterion for judging the morality of an action. However, they differ on what type of pleasure is most valuable: Aristippus advocates for active hedonism, focusing on intense but short-lived sensory pleasures, based on the belief that life is uncertain and short. Epicurus supports passive hedonism, prioritizing long-lasting mental and bodily tranquility, arguing that this form of pleasure is more sustainable and leads to true happiness. Agent-Relative Non-Hedonism Friedrich Nietzsche represents the exclusive form of agent-relative non-hedonism. Nietzsche rejects the idea that pleasure is the intrinsic good, instead asserting that will to power—the ability to overcome challenges and assert control—is the fundamental value. In this view, an action is morally good if it enhances the agent’s will to power, and morally bad if it weakens it. Nietzsche's ethical theory remains consequentialist because it judges actions by their ability to increase the agent's power, positioning power as the intrinsic good rather than pleasure. His focus on individual 3  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified empowerment aligns with agent-relative non-hedonism, where the well-being of others is secondary to the agent's own growth and strength. C. UTILITARIANISM Utilitarianism is the most influential form of consequentialism, such that some authors equate (though inaccurately) consequentialism with utilitarianism. To have a better understanding of this ethical theory, we shall elaborate on its basic elements and examine its various forms. Being an agent-neutral form of consequentialism, the specific versions of utilitarianism that we shall cover serve as representative ethical theories for agent-neutral consequentialism. BASIC ELEMENTS OF UTILITARIANISM Utilitarianism, as explained by Richard Hare, can be understood through its three core elements: consequentialism, welfarism, and aggregationism. 1. Consequentialism: Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning it evaluates the morality of an action based on its outcomes. The focus is on the consequences of the action. 2. Welfarism: The relevant consequences are those that affect the welfare or well-being of individuals. Welfare can be understood as what improves a person’s quality of life. Different utilitarians define welfare variously, such as pleasure, knowledge, or preference satisfaction. 3. Aggregationism: Utilitarianism seeks to maximize the total welfare of all individuals affected by the action. It’s an agent-neutral theory, meaning that the well-being of everyone is considered equally, with no special preference for the agent’s own welfare. Calculating the Morally Good Action To determine which action is morally good, utilitarianism involves a calculation process: Sum Total of Pleasures: Calculate the total pleasure an action brings to all affected individuals. Sum Total of Pains: Calculate the total pain the action causes. Net Total: Subtract the total pain from the total pleasure to get the net welfare. Comparison: Compare the net totals of different actions, and the action with the highest net total is the morally correct one. For example, if Action X provides a net pleasure of 9 units and Action Y provides 12 units, Action Y is morally superior because it maximizes overall welfare. Impartiality and the Greatest Happiness Principle The principle of aggregationism requires impartiality—everyone's welfare is considered equally. Utilitarianism is often summarized by the phrase "the greatest happiness of the greatest number," but it’s not about majority rule. Instead, it’s about maximizing overall welfare, even if this means prioritizing one individual's significant benefit over smaller benefits for many. Therefore, utilitarianism requires that personal interests be set aside if the greater good is better served by another action, even if it does not benefit the agent. Utilitarianism demands that we act as "disinterested and benevolent spectators," considering the welfare of all equally and choosing the action that produces the maximum net welfare. HEDONISTIC AND NON-HEDONISTIC UTILITARIANISM There are two general divisions in utilitarianism: the first is between hedonistic and non-hedonistic utilitarianism; the second is between act and rule utilitarianism. In this section, we shall focus on the first general division, which arises from the question of what constitutes the intrinsic good that ought to be maximized. Under each of these two general types of utilitarianism (hedonistic and non-hedonistic types) are specific forms arising from further considerations. 4  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified HEDONISTIC FORMS OF UTILITARIANISM Hedonistic utilitarianism posits that pleasure is the only intrinsic good, and pain is the only intrinsic bad. Both Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are central figures in this theory, but they differ in how they assess pleasures and pains. Bentham’s Quantitative Utilitarianism Bentham’s approach, known as quantitative utilitarianism, evaluates the morality of actions based on the quantity of pleasure they produce. He argues that all pleasures are fundamentally equal in quality and differ only in measurable aspects like intensity or duration. To determine the most morally correct action, Bentham introduces the hedonistic calculus, which assesses pleasure using these criteria: 1. Intensity: How strong the pleasure is. 2. Duration: How long the pleasure lasts. 3. Certainty: The likelihood of the pleasure occurring. 4. Propinquity: How soon the pleasure will occur. 5. Fecundity: The likelihood that the pleasure will lead to more pleasures. 6. Purity: The likelihood that the pleasure will not lead to pain. 7. Extent: The number of people affected by the pleasure. Example Calculation: Suppose we are comparing two actions, X and Y, affecting persons A, B, and C. Action X: Each person (A, B, C) gets 5 units of pleasure and 2 units of pain. Total pleasure = 5×3=15 units. Total pain = 2×3=6 units. Net pleasure for Action X = 15−6= 9 units. Action Y: Each person (A, B, C) gets 6 units of pleasure and 2 units of pain. Total pleasure = 6×3=18 units. Total pain = 2×3=6 units. Net pleasure for Action Y = 18−6= 12 units. Since Action Y produces a greater net pleasure (12 units) compared to Action X (9 units), Bentham's quantitative utilitarianism would consider Action Y the morally correct choice.\ Mill’s Qualitative Utilitarianism Mill’s version, known as qualitative utilitarianism, argues that not all pleasures are equal. He distinguishes between higher (mental) and lower (physical) pleasures, claiming that intellectual pleasures are more valuable than mere sensory pleasures. This distinction helps address the criticism that utilitarianism reduces human experience to basic animalistic pleasures. Mill famously states, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied," emphasizing that the quality of pleasure matters more than its quantity. Mill responds to three main objections to utilitarianism: 5  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified 1. The Swinish Doctrine: Critics argue that utilitarianism reduces human pleasures to the same level as animal pleasures. Mill counters by highlighting the higher quality of mental pleasures compared to physical ones. 2. Lack of Objective Criteria: Critics claim there’s no objective way to judge different pleasures. Mill argues that competent judges—those who have experienced a wide range of pleasures—can determine which pleasures are more valuable. 3. Self-Sacrifice and Martyrdom: Critics suggest that utilitarianism fails to account for the moral goodness of self-sacrifice. Mill clarifies that utilitarianism aims for the greatest happiness for the greatest number, which may require individual sacrifices. However, self-sacrifice is only morally good if it contributes to overall happiness. NON-HEDONISTIC FORMS OF UTILITARIANISM Non-hedonistic utilitarianism departs from traditional hedonistic views by rejecting the idea that pleasure and pain are the only intrinsic goods and bads. This rejection occurs in two forms: 1. Exclusive Non-Hedonistic Utilitarianism: Rejects pleasure as the intrinsic good, proposing instead that something else is the intrinsic good. The most prominent example is preference utilitarianism, which asserts that the satisfaction of preferences (desires or interests) is the intrinsic good. Key proponents include Richard Hare and Peter Singer. 2. Inclusive Non-Hedonistic Utilitarianism: Accepts pleasure as an intrinsic good but adds other intrinsic goods. Pluralistic utilitarianism, advocated by thinkers like Hastings Rashdall and G.E. Moore, is a prime example. This form recognizes multiple intrinsic goods, such as beauty, knowledge, power, and healthy relationships, alongside pleasure. Preference Utilitarianism (Exclusive Non-Hedonistic Utilitarianism) Preference utilitarianism focuses on maximizing the satisfaction of preferences rather than pleasure. An action is morally good if it leads to the greatest satisfaction of preferences for the greatest number. Example: A professor prefers to bike to his office, while his students prefer that he arrives quickly by car. The strength of preferences can be represented numerically: Professor's preference: 4 units John's preference: 3 units Mary's preference: 2 units If the professor’s preference conflicts with just one student’s preference, his would prevail. However, combined, the students' preferences (3 + 2 = 5 units) outweigh the professor's, so the morally correct action would be to drive rather than bike. To resolve preference conflicts, Hare suggests putting oneself in the shoes of others to weigh preferences impartially, treating others' preferences as if they were one's own. Pluralistic Utilitarianism (Inclusive Non-Hedonistic Utilitarianism) Pluralistic utilitarianism holds that there is a plurality of intrinsic goods, such as beauty, knowledge, and healthy relationships, in addition to pleasure. These goods are valued for their own sake, independent of any pleasure they might bring. Example: 1. Sympathy: Feeling sorrow for someone in misery is desirable even though it doesn’t bring pleasure. Deriving pleasure from someone else's suffering is inappropriate and morally wrong. 6  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified 2. Beauty: G.E. Moore argues that beauty is intrinsically valuable. Even in a world without conscious beings, we would still prefer a world filled with natural beauty over an ugly one, indicating that beauty’s value is independent of the pleasure derived from it. ACT AND RULE UTILITARIANISM Utilitarianism can be divided into act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism, based on how the principle of maximizing aggregate good or welfare is applied. Act Utilitarianism: This version applies the utilitarian principle directly to individual actions. The morality of an action is judged solely by whether it maximizes aggregate good. If an act produces the greatest overall good, it is morally correct, regardless of any rules it may break. Rule Utilitarianism: This version applies the utilitarian principle to the rules that govern actions. A rule is considered good if, when generally followed, it maximizes aggregate good (referred to as an optimific rule). An action is morally correct if it conforms to an optimific rule, even if breaking the rule in a particular case might produce better consequences. Key Differences Example 1: Paying a Plumber Act Utilitarianism: If an act utilitarian hires a plumber and realizes that donating the payment to charity would produce greater good, they might consider not paying the plumber as the morally correct action. Rule Utilitarianism: A rule utilitarian would argue that the rule "honor contracts" is optimific because it promotes trust and social stability. Therefore, paying the plumber is the morally correct action, despite the potential greater good of the donation. Example 2: The Desert Island Promise Act Utilitarianism: Suppose a person promises a dying man on a desert island to donate his gold to a club, but after returning home, the person realizes that donating the gold to a hospital would save lives. Act utilitarianism would support breaking the promise because it leads to better consequences. Rule Utilitarianism: Following the rule "keep promises" would typically be seen as optimific, but in this case, insisting on the rule might seem like "rule worship" since the promise-keeping would not lead to the best outcome (saving lives). Criticisms and Defenses Act Utilitarianism Critique: Critics argue that act utilitarianism can lead to absurd situations, such as justifying breaking promises or contracts if doing so maximizes overall good. This could undermine trust and social order. Rule Utilitarianism Defense: Rule utilitarianism avoids these issues by adhering to rules that, when generally followed, produce the greatest good. However, act utilitarians criticize rule utilitarianism for potentially leading to "rule worship," where rules are followed even when breaking them would lead to better consequences. Is Rule Utilitarianism Deontological? Although rule utilitarianism considers the moral relevance of rules, it remains a form of consequentialism because the goodness of the rules is still determined by their consequences. Some view rule utilitarianism as a compromise between deontological ethics and utilitarianism, aiming to prevent absurd outcomes by incorporating stable, general rules into the utilitarian framework. COMPLEX FORMS OF UTILITARIANISM 7  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Utilitarianism can be divided into four complex forms by combining the distinctions between hedonistic and non-hedonistic utilitarianism with the distinctions between act and rule utilitarianism. Each form offers a unique approach to determining the morality of an action based on maximizing good or welfare. 1. Act Hedonistic Utilitarianism: An action is morally good if it maximizes aggregate happiness (pleasure) for all affected. Example: If a specific action, like donating to charity, results in the greatest overall happiness, it is the morally correct action. This form is also known as classical utilitarianism. 2. Rule Hedonistic Utilitarianism: An action is morally good if it follows a rule that, when generally followed, maximizes aggregate happiness. Example: The rule "keep promises" is followed because, in general, keeping promises leads to greater overall happiness, even if in some cases breaking a promise might lead to a better outcome. 3. Act Non-Hedonistic Utilitarianism: An action is morally good if it maximizes aggregate welfare (which may include but is not limited to pleasure). Example: Choosing a policy that improves overall quality of life, such as health or education, even if it doesn’t necessarily maximize happiness in the traditional sense. 4. Rule Non-Hedonistic Utilitarianism: An action is morally good if it follows a rule that, when generally followed, maximizes aggregate welfare. Example: Following a rule that ensures equal access to healthcare because it generally improves the quality of life for all, even if in some situations breaking the rule might seem to offer a better immediate result. Influence and Criticisms Despite differences among these forms, utilitarianism remains highly influential, especially in fields like economics, business, and politics. It provides a practical framework for decision-making, often used in methods such as cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and quality-adjusted life years analysis. However, utilitarianism is not without its critics. Some argue that focusing on maximizing aggregate good can lead to injustices or violations of individual rights. Proponents of utilitarianism address these concerns by asserting that concepts like justice and rights have instrumental value—they are important because they typically lead to the maximization of welfare, not as ends in themselves. 8