Consequentialism

Ethics is the study of right and wrong. It is also referred to as moral philosophy
and analyzes the principles that decide the behavior of an individual or a group.
There are many different theories in ethics with consequentialism and
utilitarianism being an important one. There are many similarities between these
two theories of ethics to make students confused as they tend to equate one with
another and often use them interchangeably. This article attempts to highlight the
differences between consequentialism and utilitarianism for the benefit of the
readers.

Ethics or moral philosophy is a diverse and hotly contested subject of inquiry. It is

not the same as having “morals” per se, but rather the study of how people may
evolve a certain code of what is right or wrong based on any underlying moral
sense. One area of its focus is the application of morality, as constructed by one or
more people, to ask many different questions. There are numerous common ethics
questions, but they may differ depending on the type of ethics being considered.

When ethics is a applied moral code or ways to derive one, this does not mean all
people agree. In most environments, ethics tends to begin by defining what is
meant by right or wrong, and determining if application of any ethics derived
excludes some people. The early US constitution did this by declaring slaves to be
less than a person, and women to be ineligible for citizenship because the framers
asked the question, “What is a citizen?”

In more general ways, any questions touching on whether something is right or

wrong are ethics questions, which start early in life. Most children, for instance,
might find themselves in a moral dilemma about whether it is right to take a cookie
off a plate. To determine exclusions the child might also begin to define when it is
right to take the cookie, such as when offered it or when mother isn’t looking. This
reasoning may be perfected in light of response of others to the child’s choice.

When cultures have defined, more or less in agreement, basic ethical behavior,
there is still significant gray area. An entire branch of ethics called applied ethics,
deals with what are mostly known as hot button issues. Some of the most common
ethics questions include queries into the definition of marriage, the age at which
life begins, euthanasia, the importance of individual versus state rights, and the
list continues.

These ethics questions are asked frequently asked, either informally by students
writing papers or having debates, or formally by heads of state or others attempting
to pass bills. Such questions may be mistakenly called moral questions, but the
very reason they exist is because different moral codes have led to opposing sets of
ethics. When underlying morals are opposed, trying to define a single ethical code
legally or individually is extremely challenging. Decision on a particular issue may
then be called creation of an ethic, but it is different than creating a moral belief.
Such laws will only encompass the majority and a large minority can still feel the
ethic conflicts with personal ethics and morals.

In professional organizations, similar ethical models must be constructed. Marriage

and family therapists, and all other counselors for instance had to ask, at one
point, “Does it benefit patients if therapists have sexual relations with them?”
Initially people failed to ask this question some of the time, and even the most
famous early psychiatrists did not always abide by their advice to avoid this
practice. To this end, and because the issue is still surprisingly prevalent,
professional organizations built ethical codes forbidding this conduct.

Similarly, in practicing medicine, many doctors abide by the precept to do no harm.

This again is complex. Is it harmful to subject a patient to treatment that won’t
save a life? What exactly is medical harm? Is it harming a patient to let him die a
painful death when drugs could end his suffering? Even in strictly professional
settings, there exists depth to common ethics questions, and answers to them may
be debatable.

Essentially, it’s hard to exist without asking common ethics questions. They arise
in daily life in a variety of choices people make. Most people find themselves
concerned in what is the right thing to do, often.

In essence, many people live in a constant state of checking behavior and thinking
against both personal and state-legislated ethical code. Some find these little
checks easy to make, and others find themselves in constant conflict between right
actions and moral sense. Moreover, in the face of things like professional or legal
code, many people find that moral sense is absolutely opposed to codes. In such
instances, after much self-searching, it may mean that acting ethically requires
acting illegally.

foresee potential consequences and risks

Good decisions are both ethical and effective:

Ethical decisions generate and sustain trust; demonstrate respect, responsibility,

fairness and caring; and are consistent with good citizenship. These behaviors
provide a foundation for making better decisions by setting the ground rules for our
behavior.

Effective decisions are effective if they accomplish what we want accomplished and
if they advance our purposes. A choice that produces unintended and undesirable
results is ineffective. The key to making effective decisions is to think about choices
in terms of their ability to accomplish our most important goals. This means we
have to understand the difference between immediate and short-term goals and
longer-range goals.

1. Metaethics:

The term "meta" means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of
metaethics involves a removed, or bird's eye view of the entire project of ethics. We
may define metaethics as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts.
When compared to normative ethics and applied ethics, the field of metaethics is
the least precisely defined area of moral philosophy. It covers issues from moral
semantics to moral epistemology. Two issues, though, are prominent: (1)
metaphysical issues concerning whether morality exists independently of humans,
and (2) psychological issues concerning the underlying mental basis of our moral
judgments and conduct.

a. Metaphysical Issues: Objectivism and Relativism

Metaphysics is the study of the kinds of things that exist in the universe. Some
things in the universe are made of physical stuff, such as rocks; and perhaps other
things are nonphysical in nature, such as thoughts, spirits, and gods. The
metaphysical component of metaethics involves discovering specifically whether
moral values are eternal truths that exist in a spirit-like realm, or simply human
conventions. There are two general directions that discussions of this topic take,
one other-worldly and one this-worldly.

Proponents of the other-worldly view typically hold that moral values are objective
in the sense that they exist in a spirit-like realm beyond subjective human
conventions. They also hold that they are absolute, or eternal, in that they never
change, and also that they are universal insofar as they apply to all rational
creatures around the world and throughout time. The most dramatic example of
this view is Plato, who was inspired by the field of mathematics. When we look at
numbers and mathematical relations, such as 1+1=2, they seem to be timeless
concepts that never change, and apply everywhere in the universe. Humans do not
invent numbers, and humans cannot alter them. Plato explained the eternal
character of mathematics by stating that they are abstract entities that exist in a
spirit-like realm. He noted that moral values also are absolute truths and thus are
also abstract, spirit-like entities. In this sense, for Plato, moral values are spiritual
objects. Medieval philosophers commonly grouped all moral principles together
under the heading of "eternal law" which were also frequently seen as spirit-like
objects. 17th century British philosopher Samuel Clarke described them as spirit-
like relationships rather than spirit-like objects. In either case, though, they exist
in a spirit-like realm. A different other-worldly approach to the metaphysical status
of morality is divine commands issuing from God's will. Sometimes called
voluntarism (or divine command theory), this view was inspired by the notion of an
all-powerful God who is in control of everything. God simply wills things, and they
become reality. He wills the physical world into existence, he wills human life into
existence and, similarly, he wills all moral values into existence. Proponents of this
view, such as medieval philosopher William of Ockham, believe that God wills
moral principles, such as "murder is wrong," and these exist in God's mind as
commands. God informs humans of these commands by implanting us with moral
intuitions or revealing these commands in scripture.

The second and more this-worldly approach to the metaphysical status of morality
follows in the skeptical philosophical tradition, such as that articulated by Greek
philosopher Sextus Empiricus, and denies the objective status of moral values.
Technically, skeptics did not reject moral values themselves, but only denied that
values exist as spirit-like objects, or as divine commands in the mind of God. Moral
values, they argued, are strictly human inventions, a position that has since been
called moral relativism. There are two distinct forms of moral relativism. The first is
individual relativism, which holds that individual people create their own moral
standards. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, argued that the superhuman creates
his or her morality distinct from and in reaction to the slave-like value system of
the masses. The second is cultural relativism which maintains that morality is
grounded in the approval of one's society - and not simply in the preferences of
individual people. This view was advocated by Sextus, and in more recent centuries
by Michel Montaigne and William Graham Sumner. In addition to espousing
skepticism and relativism, this-worldly approaches to the metaphysical status of
morality deny the absolute and universal nature of morality and hold instead that
moral values in fact change from society to society throughout time and throughout
the world. They frequently attempt to defend their position by citing examples of
values that differ dramatically from one culture to another, such as attitudes about
polygamy, homosexuality and human sacrifice.

b. Psychological Issues in Metaethics

A second area of metaethics involves the psychological basis of our moral

judgments and conduct, particularly understanding what motivates us to be moral.
We might explore this subject by asking the simple question, "Why be moral?" Even
if I am aware of basic moral standards, such as don't kill and don't steal, this does
not necessarily mean that I will be psychologically compelled to act on them. Some
answers to the question "Why be moral?" are to avoid punishment, to gain praise,
to attain happiness, to be dignified, or to fit in with society.

i. Egoism and Altruism

One important area of moral psychology concerns the inherent selfishness of

humans. 17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes held that many, if not
all, of our actions are prompted by selfish desires. Even if an action seems selfless,
such as donating to charity, there are still selfish causes for this, such as
experiencing power over other people. This view is called psychological egoism and
maintains that self-oriented interests ultimately motivate all human actions.
Closely related to psychological egoism is a view called psychological hedonism
which is the view that pleasure is the specific driving force behind all of our
actions. 18th century British philosopher Joseph Butler agreed that instinctive
selfishness and pleasure prompt much of our conduct. However, Butler argued that
we also have an inherent psychological capacity to show benevolence to others.
This view is called psychological altruism and maintains that at least some of our
actions are motivated by instinctive benevolence.

ii. Emotion and Reason

A second area of moral psychology involves a dispute concerning the role of reason
in motivating moral actions. If, for example, I make the statement "abortion is
morally wrong," am I making a rational assessment or only expressing my feelings?
On the one side of the dispute, 18th century British philosopher David Hume
argued that moral assessments involve our emotions, and not our reason. We can
amass all the reasons we want, but that alone will not constitute a moral
assessment. We need a distinctly emotional reaction in order to make a moral
pronouncement. Reason might be of service in giving us the relevant data, but, in
Hume's words, "reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions." Inspired by
Hume's anti-rationalist views, some 20th century philosophers, most notably A.J.
Ayer, similarly denied that moral assessments are factual descriptions. For
example, although the statement "it is good to donate to charity" may on the
surface look as though it is a factual description about charity, it is not. Instead, a
moral utterance like this involves two things. First, I (the speaker) I am expressing
my personal feelings of approval about charitable donations and I am in essence
saying "Hooray for charity!" This is called the emotive element insofar as I am
expressing my emotions about some specific behavior. Second, I (the speaker) am
trying to get you to donate to charity and am essentially giving the command,
"Donate to charity!" This is called the prescriptive element in the sense that I am
prescribing some specific behavior.

From Hume's day forward, more rationally-minded philosophers have opposed

these emotive theories of ethics (see non-cognitivism in ethics) and instead argued
that moral assessments are indeed acts of reason. 18th century German
philosopher Immanuel Kant is a case in point. Although emotional factors often do
influence our conduct, he argued, we should nevertheless resist that kind of sway.
Instead, true moral action is motivated only by reason when it is free from emotions
and desires. A recent rationalist approach, offered by Kurt Baier (1958), was
proposed in direct opposition to the emotivist and prescriptivist theories of Ayer
and others. Baier focuses more broadly on the reasoning and argumentation
process that takes place when making moral choices. All of our moral choices are,
or at least can be, backed by some reason or justification. If I claim that it is wrong
to steal someone's car, then I should be able to justify my claim with some kind of
argument. For example, I could argue that stealing Smith's car is wrong since this
would upset her, violate her ownership rights, or put the thief at risk of getting
caught. According to Baier, then, proper moral decision making involves giving the
best reasons in support of one course of action versus another.

iii. Male and Female Morality

A third area of moral psychology focuses on whether there is a distinctly female

approach to ethics that is grounded in the psychological differences between men
and women. Discussions of this issue focus on two claims: (1) traditional morality
is male-centered, and (2) there is a unique female perspective of the world which
can be shaped into a value theory. According to many feminist philosophers,
traditional morality is male-centered since it is modeled after practices that have
been traditionally male-dominated, such as acquiring property, engaging in
business contracts, and governing societies. The rigid systems of rules required for
trade and government were then taken as models for the creation of equally rigid
systems of moral rules, such as lists of rights and duties. Women, by contrast,
have traditionally had a nurturing role by raising children and overseeing domestic
life. These tasks require less rule following, and more spontaneous and creative
action. Using the woman's experience as a model for moral theory, then, the basis
of morality would be spontaneously caring for others as would be appropriate in
each unique circumstance. On this model, the agent becomes part of the situation
and acts caringly within that context. This stands in contrast with male-modeled
morality where the agent is a mechanical actor who performs his required duty, but
can remain distanced from and unaffected by the situation. A care-based approach
to morality, as it is sometimes called, is offered by feminist ethicists as either a
replacement for or a supplement to traditional male-modeled moral systems.

2. Normative Ethics

Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong
conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The
Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others
what we would want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal
my car, then it is wrong for me to steal her car. Since I would want people to feed
me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people. Using this same
reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any possible action is right or
wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie to,
harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a
normative theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all
actions. Other normative theories focus on a set of foundational principles, or a set
of good character traits.

The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion
of moral conduct, whether it is a single rule or a set of principles. Three strategies
will be noted here: (1) virtue theories, (2) duty theories, and (3) consequentialist
theories.

a. Virtue Theories

Many philosophers believe that morality consists of following precisely defined rules
of conduct, such as "don't kill," or "don't steal." Presumably, I must learn these
rules, and then make sure each of my actions live up to the rules. Virtue ethics,
however, places less emphasis on learning rules, and instead stresses the
importance of developing good habits of character, such as benevolence (see moral
character). Once I've acquired benevolence, for example, I will then habitually act in
a benevolent manner. Historically, virtue theory is one of the oldest normative
traditions in Western philosophy, having its roots in ancient Greek civilization.
Plato emphasized four virtues in particular, which were later called cardinal
virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Other important virtues are
fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good temper, and sincerity. In addition to
advocating good habits of character, virtue theorists hold that we should avoid
acquiring bad character traits, or vices, such as cowardice, insensibility, injustice,
and vanity. Virtue theory emphasizes moral education since virtuous character
traits are developed in one's youth. Adults, therefore, are responsible for instilling
virtues in the young.

Aristotle argued that virtues are good habits that we acquire, which regulate our
emotions. For example, in response to my natural feelings of fear, I should develop
the virtue of courage which allows me to be firm when facing danger. Analyzing 11
specific virtues, Aristotle argued that most virtues fall at a mean between more
extreme character traits. With courage, for example, if I do not have enough
courage, I develop the disposition of cowardice, which is a vice. If I have too much
courage I develop the disposition of rashness which is also a vice. According to
Aristotle, it is not an easy task to find the perfect mean between extreme character
traits. In fact, we need assistance from our reason to do this. After Aristotle,
medieval theologians supplemented Greek lists of virtues with three Christian ones,
or theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity. Interest in virtue theory continued
through the middle ages and declined in the 19th century with the rise of
alternative moral theories below. In the mid 20th century virtue theory received
special attention from philosophers who believed that more recent ethical theories
were misguided for focusing too heavily on rules and actions, rather than on
virtuous character traits. Alasdaire MacIntyre (1984) defended the central role of
virtues in moral theory and argued that virtues are grounded in and emerge from
within social traditions.

b. Duty Theories

Many of us feel that there are clear obligations we have as human beings, such as
to care for our children, and to not commit murder. Duty theories base morality on
specific, foundational principles of obligation. These theories are sometimes called
deontological, from the Greek word deon, or duty, in view of the foundational
nature of our duty or obligation. They are also sometimes called
nonconsequentialist since these principles are obligatory, irrespective of the
consequences that might follow from our actions. For example, it is wrong to not
care for our children even if it results in some great benefit, such as financial
savings. There are four central duty theories.

The first is that championed by 17th century German philosopher Samuel

Pufendorf, who classified dozens of duties under three headings: duties to God,
duties to oneself, and duties to others. Concerning our duties towards God, he
argued that there are two kinds:

a theoretical duty to know the existence and nature of God, and

a practical duty to both inwardly and outwardly worship God.

Concerning our duties towards oneself, these are also of two sorts:

duties of the soul, which involve developing one's skills and talents, and

duties of the body, which involve not harming our bodies, as we might through
gluttony or drunkenness, and not killing oneself.

Concerning our duties towards others, Pufendorf divides these between absolute
duties, which are universally binding on people, and conditional duties, which are
the result of contracts between people. Absolute duties are of three sorts:

avoid wronging others,

treat people as equals, and

promote the good of others.

Conditional duties involve various types of agreements, the principal one of which
is the duty is to keep one's promises.

A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights theory. Most generally, a "right" is

a justified claim against another person's behavior - such as my right to not be
harmed by you (see also human rights). Rights and duties are related in such a way
that the rights of one person implies the duties of another person. For example, if I
have a right to payment of $10 by Smith, then Smith has a duty to pay me $10.
This is called the correlativity of rights and duties. The most influential early
account of rights theory is that of 17th century British philosopher John Locke,
who argued that the laws of nature mandate that we should not harm anyone's life,
health, liberty or possessions. For Locke, these are our natural rights, given to us
by God. Following Locke, the United States Declaration of Independence authored
by Thomas Jefferson recognizes three foundational rights: life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. Jefferson and others rights theorists maintained that we
deduce other more specific rights from these, including the rights of property,
movement, speech, and religious expression. There are four features traditionally
associated with moral rights. First, rights are natural insofar as they are not
invented or created by governments. Second, they are universal insofar as they do
not change from country to country. Third, they are equal in the sense that rights
are the same for all people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap. Fourth, they
are inalienable which means that I cannot hand over my rights to another person,
such as by selling myself into slavery.

A third duty-based theory is that by Kant, which emphasizes a single principle of

duty. Influenced by Pufendorf, Kant agreed that we have moral duties to oneself
and others, such as developing one's talents, and keeping our promises to others.
However, Kant argued that there is a more foundational principle of duty that
encompasses our particular duties. It is a single, self-evident principle of reason
that he calls the "categorical imperative." A categorical imperative, he argued, is
fundamentally different from hypothetical imperatives that hinge on some personal
desire that we have, for example, "If you want to get a good job, then you ought to
go to college." By contrast, a categorical imperative simply mandates an action,
irrespective of one's personal desires, such as "You ought to do X." Kant gives at
least four versions of the categorical imperative, but one is especially direct: Treat
people as an end, and never as a means to an end. That is, we should always treat
people with dignity, and never use them as mere instruments. For Kant, we treat
people as an end whenever our actions toward someone reflect the inherent value
of that person. Donating to charity, for example, is morally correct since this
acknowledges the inherent value of the recipient. By contrast, we treat someone as
a means to an end whenever we treat that person as a tool to achieve something
else. It is wrong, for example, to steal my neighbor's car since I would be treating
her as a means to my own happiness. The categorical imperative also regulates the
morality of actions that affect us individually. Suicide, for example, would be wrong
since I would be treating my life as a means to the alleviation of my misery. Kant
believes that the morality of all actions can be determined by appealing to this
single principle of duty.

A fourth and more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher W.D.
Ross, which emphasizes prima facie duties. Like his 17th and 18th century
counterparts, Ross argues that our duties are "part of the fundamental nature of
the universe." However, Ross's list of duties is much shorter, which he believes
reflects our actual moral convictions:

Fidelity: the duty to keep promises

Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we harm them

Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us

Justice: the duty to recognize merit

Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others

Self-improvement: the duty to improve our virtue and intelligence

Nonmaleficence: the duty to not injure others

Ross recognizes that situations will arise when we must choose between two
conflicting duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow my neighbor's gun and
promise to return it when he asks for it. One day, in a fit of rage, my neighbor
pounds on my door and asks for the gun so that he can take vengeance on
someone. On the one hand, the duty of fidelity obligates me to return the gun; on
the other hand, the duty of nonmaleficence obligates me to avoid injuring others
and thus not return the gun. According to Ross, I will intuitively know which of
these duties is my actual duty, and which is my apparent or prima facie duty. In
this case, my duty of nonmaleficence emerges as my actual duty and I should not
return the gun.

Consequentialism is perhaps the most developed view of ethics, according to which

the ethical worth of an action is proportional to its consequences. In particular,
consequentialism holds that among all the possible courses of action, an agent
should pursue the one that, overall, brings about the greatest amount of good – or,
in jargon, the one that maximizes good. The term was first coined by Elizabeth
Anscombe in “Modern Moral Philosophy” (1958) as a catch-all for the different
brands of utilitarianism such as Jeremy Bentham’s quantitative model, J.S. Mill’s
qualitative model, and G.E. Moore’s rule utilitarianism.

Consequentialism is a theory in ethics that judges people, things and issues on the
basis of their outcomes or consequences. Thus, this theory teaches us that we can
attain happiness if we can compare the outcome of an action with the beliefs and
taboos of the society. Such a theory is of the view that our morality is all about
producing good results or consequences. This is a view that has been a subject of
debate for long as it expects people to be respectful, obedient, following rules and
regulations, god fearing, and not poking their noses in the affairs of others just
because of good consequences these actions would bring along. Consequentialists
make it binding upon human beings to engage in activities that bring good
consequences.

Consequentialist Theories

It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the

consequences of our actions. According to consequentialism, correct moral conduct
is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences:

Consequentialism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are

more favorable than unfavorable.

Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the good and
bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine whether the total good
consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are
greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then
the action is morally improper. Consequentialist theories are sometimes called
teleological theories, from the Greek word telos, or end, since the end result of the
action is the sole determining factor of its morality.

Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18th century by philosophers who

wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by appealing to experience, rather
than by appealing to gut intuitions or long lists of questionable duties. In fact, the
most attractive feature of consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable
consequences of actions. Most versions of consequentialism are more precisely
formulated than the general principle above. In particular, competing
consequentialist theories specify which consequences for affected groups of people
are relevant. Three subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:

Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing the action.

Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent.
Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.

All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for different groups
of people. But, like all normative theories, the above three theories are rivals of
each other. They also yield different conclusions. Consider the following example. A
woman was traveling through a developing country when she witnessed a car in
front of her run off the road and roll over several times. She asked the hired driver
to pull over to assist, but, to her surprise, the driver accelerated nervously past the
scene. A few miles down the road the driver explained that in his country if
someone assists an accident victim, then the police often hold the assisting person
responsible for the accident itself. If the victim dies, then the assisting person could
be held responsible for the death. The driver continued explaining that road
accident victims are therefore usually left unattended and often die from exposure
to the country's harsh desert conditions. On the principle of ethical egoism, the
woman in this illustration would only be concerned with the consequences of her
attempted assistance as she would be affected. Clearly, the decision to drive on
would be the morally proper choice. On the principle of ethical altruism, she would
be concerned only with the consequences of her action as others are affected,
particularly the accident victim. Tallying only those consequences reveals that
assisting the victim would be the morally correct choice, irrespective of the negative
consequences that result for her. On the principle of utilitarianism, she must
consider the consequences for both herself and the victim. The outcome here is less
clear, and the woman would need to precisely calculate the overall benefit versus
disbenefit of her action.

The Good

Consequentialism allows for a relatively simple, largely practical model of ethics–

rather than ascribing, for example, to a religious ethical system which has different
laws for different eras (Old Testament and New Testament), different and conflicting
accounts for ethical grounding (Divine Command Theory vs. Ethical Essentialism),
different epistemologies (Natural law vs. Special Revelation).

Consequentialism does not specify or explicitly require any God or supernature.

Consequentialism, in the form of utilitarianism, treats people as broadly equal

The ends do seem to possess some moral weight.

Consequentialism, in the form of utilitarianism, identifies pleasure within goodness

so that even animals can be ethically valuable since they can feel pleasure and
pain.

In some cases, the ends do seem to justify the means–such as torturing prisoners
to avert a terrorist strike.

The Bad
Now, there may be other benefits not named here that should be included in this
list. But this sample should suffice to show how consequentialism can be attractive
to novice and advanced ethicists. However, when the drawbacks are also weighed,
it should be obvious whether consequentialism is found wanting. Mene mene tekel
upharsin.

Consequentialism allows people to be treated as “means to an end.”

Kant’s deontological ethic proposed that people are ethical subjects–ends in

themselves–not to be treated as objects which some social engineer can rightly
manipulate for the “greater good.” Consequentialism, at least in it’s figurehead
system of utilitarianism, locates “the good” not in people, or life, or or human
nature, but in pleasure. Since people are distinct from and separable from
pleasure, people are not intrinsically valuable. People can be means or ends. When
people are treated as means some horrible stuff can happen. Consequentialism was
a key component in justifying the U.S. eugenics legislation at the turn of the 20th
century, and in the 3rd Reich in Germany in WWII, and again in Apartheid South
Africa.

Types of Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully developed systems of

utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworty. First, Bentham proposed
that we tally the consequences of each action we perform and thereby determine on
a case by case basis whether an action is morally right or wrong. This aspect of
Bentham's theory is known as act-utilitiarianism. Second, Bentham also proposed
that we tally the pleasure and pain which results from our actions. For Bentham,
pleasure and pain are the only consequences that matter in determining whether
our conduct is moral. This aspect of Bentham's theory is known as hedonistic
utilitarianism. Critics point out limitations in both of these aspects.

First, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally wrong to waste time on

leisure activities such as watching television, since our time could be spent in ways
that produced a greater social benefit, such as charity work. But prohibiting leisure
activities doesn't seem reasonable. More significantly, according to act-
utilitarianism, specific acts of torture or slavery would be morally permissible if the
social benefit of these actions outweighed the disbenefit. A revised version of
utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism addresses these problems. According to
rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the consequences of
adopting that rule are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. Unlike act
utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences of each particular action, rule-
utilitarianism offers a litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such as
"stealing is wrong." Adopting a rule against theft clearly has more favorable
consequences than unfavorable consequences for everyone. The same is true for
moral rules against lying or murdering. Rule-utilitarianism, then, offers a three-
tiered method for judging conduct. A particular action, such as stealing my
neighbor's car, is judged wrong since it violates a moral rule against theft. In turn,
the rule against theft is morally binding because adopting this rule produces
favorable consequences for everyone. John Stuart Mill's version of utilitarianism is
rule-oriented.

Second, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable consequences are the

only factors that matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems too restrictive since
it ignores other morally significant consequences that are not necessarily pleasing
or painful. For example, acts which foster loyalty and friendship are valued, yet
they are not always pleasing. In response to this problem, G.E. Moore proposed
ideal utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence that we intuitively
recognize as good or bad (and not simply as pleasurable or painful). Also, R.M.
Hare proposed preference utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence
that fulfills our preferences.

ii. Ethical Egoism and Social Contract Theory

We have seen (in Section 1.b.i) that Hobbes was an advocate of the methaethical
theory of psychological egoism—the view that all of our actions are selfishly
motivated. Upon that foundation, Hobbes developed a normative theory known as
social contract theory, which is a type of rule-ethical-egoism. According to Hobbes,
for purely selfish reasons, the agent is better off living in a world with moral rules
than one without moral rules. For without moral rules, we are subject to the whims
of other people's selfish interests. Our property, our families, and even our lives are
at continual risk. Selfishness alone will therefore motivate each agent to adopt a
basic set of rules which will allow for a civilized community. Not surprisingly, these
rules would include prohibitions against lying, stealing and killing. However, these
rules will ensure safety for each agent only if the rules are enforced. As selfish
creatures, each of us would plunder our neighbors' property once their guards were
down. Each agent would then be at risk from his neighbor. Therefore, for selfish
reasons alone, we devise a means of enforcing these rules: we create a policing
agency which punishes us if we violate these rules.

3. Applied Ethics

Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis of specific,
controversial moral issues such as abortion, animal rights, or euthanasia. In recent
years applied ethical issues have been subdivided into convenient groups such as
medical ethics, business ethics, environmental ethics, and sexual ethics. Generally
speaking, two features are necessary for an issue to be considered an "applied
ethical issue." First, the issue needs to be controversial in the sense that there are
significant groups of people both for and against the issue at hand. The issue of
drive-by shooting, for example, is not an applied ethical issue, since everyone
agrees that this practice is grossly immoral. By contrast, the issue of gun control
would be an applied ethical issue since there are significant groups of people both
for and against gun control.

The second requirement for an issue to be an applied ethical issue is that it must
be a distinctly moral issue. On any given day, the media presents us with an array
of sensitive issues such as affirmative action policies, gays in the military,
involuntary commitment of the mentally impaired, capitalistic versus socialistic
business practices, public versus private health care systems, or energy
conservation. Although all of these issues are controversial and have an important
impact on society, they are not all moral issues. Some are only issues of social
policy. The aim of social policy is to help make a given society run efficiently by
devising conventions, such as traffic laws, tax laws, and zoning codes. Moral
issues, by contrast, concern more universally obligatory practices, such as our
duty to avoid lying, and are not confined to individual societies. Frequently, issues
of social policy and morality overlap, as with murder which is both socially
prohibited and immoral. However, the two groups of issues are often distinct. For
example, many people would argue that sexual promiscuity is immoral, but may
not feel that there should be social policies regulating sexual conduct, or laws
punishing us for promiscuity. Similarly, some social policies forbid residents in
certain neighborhoods from having yard sales. But, so long as the neighbors are
not offended, there is nothing immoral in itself about a resident having a yard sale
in one of these neighborhoods. Thus, to qualify as an applied ethical issue, the
issue must be more than one of mere social policy: it must be morally relevant as
well.

In theory, resolving particular applied ethical issues should be easy. With the issue
of abortion, for example, we would simply determine its morality by consulting our
normative principle of choice, such as act-utilitarianism. If a given abortion
produces greater benefit than disbenefit, then, according to act-utilitarianism, it
would be morally acceptable to have the abortion. Unfortunately, there are perhaps
hundreds of rival normative principles from which to choose, many of which yield
opposite conclusions. Thus, the stalemate in normative ethics between conflicting
theories prevents us from using a single decisive procedure for determining the
morality of a specific issue. The usual solution today to this stalemate is to consult
several representative normative principles on a given issue and see where the
weight of the evidence lies.

a. Normative Principles in Applied Ethics

Arriving at a short list of representative normative principles is itself a challenging

task. The principles selected must not be too narrowly focused, such as a version of
act-egoism that might focus only on an action's short-term benefit. The principles
must also be seen as having merit by people on both sides of an applied ethical
issue. For this reason, principles that appeal to duty to God are not usually cited
since this would have no impact on a nonbeliever engaged in the debate. The
following principles are the ones most commonly appealed to in applied ethical
discussions:

Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial

consequences for the individual in question.
Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial
consequences for society.

Principle of benevolence: help those in need.

Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when they
cannot do so themselves.

Principle of harm: do not harm others.

Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.

Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.

Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person's freedom over his/her actions or

physical body.

Principle of justice: acknowledge a person's right to due process, fair compensation

for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.

Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to life, information, privacy, free expression,

and safety.

The above principles represent a spectrum of traditional normative principles and

are derived from both consequentialist and duty-based approaches. The first two
principles, personal benefit and social benefit, are consequentialist since they
appeal to the consequences of an action as it affects the individual or society. The
remaining principles are duty-based. The principles of benevolence, paternalism,
harm, honesty, and lawfulness are based on duties we have toward others. The
principles of autonomy, justice, and the various rights are based on moral rights.

An example will help illustrate the function of these principles in an applied ethical
discussion. In 1982, a couple from Bloomington, Indiana gave birth to a baby with
severe mental and physical disabilities. Among other complications, the infant,
known as Baby Doe, had its stomach disconnected from its throat and was thus
unable to receive nourishment. Although this stomach deformity was correctable
through surgery, the couple did not want to raise a severely disabled child and
therefore chose to deny surgery, food, and water for the infant. Local courts
supported the parents' decision, and six days later Baby Doe died. Should
corrective surgery have been performed for Baby Doe? Arguments in favor of
corrective surgery derive from the infant's right to life and the principle of
paternalism which stipulates that we should pursue the best interests of others
when they are incapable of doing so themselves. Arguments against corrective
surgery derive from the personal and social disbenefit which would result from
such surgery. If Baby Doe survived, its quality of life would have been poor and in
any case it probably would have died at an early age. Also, from the parent's
perspective, Baby Doe's survival would have been a significant emotional and
financial burden. When examining both sides of the issue, the parents and the
courts concluded that the arguments against surgery were stronger than the
arguments for surgery. First, foregoing surgery appeared to be in the best interests
of the infant, given the poor quality of life it would endure. Second, the status of
Baby Doe's right to life was not clear given the severity of the infant's mental
impairment. For, to possess moral rights, it takes more than merely having a
human body: certain cognitive functions must also be present. The issue here
involves what is often referred to as moral personhood, and is central to many
applied ethical discussions.

b. Issues in Applied Ethics

As noted, there are many controversial issues discussed by ethicists today, some of
which will be briefly mentioned here.

Biomedical ethics focuses on a range of issues which arise in clinical settings.

Health care workers are in an unusual position of continually dealing with life and
death situations. It is not surprising, then, that medical ethics issues are more
extreme and diverse than other areas of applied ethics. Prenatal issues arise about
the morality of surrogate mothering, genetic manipulation of fetuses, the status of
unused frozen embryos, and abortion. Other issues arise about patient rights and
physician's responsibilities, such as the confidentiality of the patient's records and
the physician's responsibility to tell the truth to dying patients. The AIDS crisis has
raised the specific issues of the mandatory screening of all patients for AIDS, and
whether physicians can refuse to treat AIDS patients. Additional issues concern
medical experimentation on humans, the morality of involuntary commitment, and
the rights of the mentally disabled. Finally, end of life issues arise about the
morality of suicide, the justifiability of suicide intervention, physician assisted
suicide, and euthanasia.

The field of business ethics examines moral controversies relating to the social
responsibilities of capitalist business practices, the moral status of corporate
entities, deceptive advertising, insider trading, basic employee rights, job
discrimination, affirmative action, drug testing, and whistle blowing.

Issues in environmental ethics often overlaps with business and medical issues.
These include the rights of animals, the morality of animal experimentation,
preserving endangered species, pollution control, management of environmental
resources, whether eco-systems are entitled to direct moral consideration, and our
obligation to future generations.

Controversial issues of sexual morality include monogamy versus polygamy, sexual

relations without love, homosexual relations, and extramarital affairs.

Finally, there are issues of social morality which examine capital punishment,
nuclear war, gun control, the recreational use of drugs, welfare rights, and racism.

"What is consequentialist ethics / consequentialism?"

Answer: Consequentialism is a theory of normative ethics. It holds that an act is

only moral or ethical if it results in a good conclusion. This is in contrast to
deontology, which teaches morality is based on duty; virtue ethics, which holds
that morality is based on a good character; and ethical relativism, which asserts
morality is based on whatever you want it to be based on.

Consequentialism is a slippery theory and has led to a great many arguments

about the specifics. After all, a person can "aim" his actions with the intent of
causing a specific result, but the outcome is out of his hands, for the most part.
Are we to believe that every moral action must be followed by a good outcome in
order to be considered truly “moral”? What if someone fights nobly for a good
cause, but fails in the end? Are the goodness of the cause and the nobility of the
fight negated by a bad outcome?

If morality is based on “a good consequence,” then we must ask, "What is ‘good’?"

Which is better, to gain pleasure or avoid harm? What is more important, filling a
need or filling a preference? The secular worldview can give no clear answer.

To try to narrow down the definition of “good,” philosophers also discuss the
question "good for whom?" A leaky roof is a burden for a homeowner but good for
the roofer. A college acceptance letter means another student was rejected. Would
it be better to improve the welfare of the acting agent or a bystander? Or society at
large?

Some consequentialists admit that the intention of the acting agent may have
something to do with the morality of the act. But then we must determine who has
the authority to judge whether the intention was appropriately considered—the
acting agent? a neutral third party? a system of laws? "Actual" consequentialists
dismiss the entire discussion of the “almost” consequentialists and insist that
morality is based solely on the actual effect; "almost" only counts in horseshoes
and hand grenades.

The Bible speaks of consequentialism, but not by name, and not in the way that
secular philosophy considers. The Bible says people ought to act morally; that is,
they should follow God's law and the guiding of His Spirit in their hearts. And the
Bible also teaches a certain end effect of morality.

Consequentialism in God's economy comes in the form of telos. Telos means

"purpose," and it informs all of God's laws. His Word is not arbitrary. The entire
history of mankind is filled with the story of God's purposes for us.

"This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on
it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in
it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success"
(Joshua 1:8).

“‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for welfare
and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope’" (Jeremiah 29:11).

"Those who love Your law have great peace, and nothing causes them to stumble"
(Psalm 119:165).
Morality does have a consequence, and it should inform our decision to perform
moral acts. But the consequences are not some nebulous, unknowable,
uncontrollable happenstance. God created morality for a purpose: "Nevertheless the
righteous will hold to his way, and he who has clean hands will grow stronger and
stronger".