Alternative moral theories to consequentialism are: deontology , which proposes that ethical decisions should be made by following rules or fulfilling duties; and virtue ethics , which proposes that the ethical action to be taken is the one that would be taken by a virtuous person. Consequentialist theories have been around for a long time. Frost Utilitarianism is by far the most widely known form of consequentialism, and there often is confusion when distinguishing the two.
Teleology is the classical term for ethical theories that focus on outcomes, or ends, to determine correct ethical action. In moral philosophy, and in philosophy generally, the term is still employed.
On this view an action — regarded as a means — is determined to be right or wrong according to its success or failure in achieving an end. Consequentialism is a paradigmatic example of teleological ethics. Good may be used to refer to anything — it is a general term that expresses positive value about something or assigns positive value to something.
Nevertheless, in philosophy the term takes on special meaning and that meaning is particularly related to ethics. Today, consequentialism is the most widely accepted umbrella term, containing distinguishable sub-categories with a broadening of desired outcomes.
To summarize concisely, consequentialism evaluates actions based solely on weighing the consequences of the action against a desired outcome. Consequentialism may be divided in different ways depending on how it is applied and the desired outcome.
Many types of consequentialism do not have a formal name, and the variations we list below are not intended to be comprehensive. Our intent is to explore the most common forms of consequentialism, using the most widely accepted names for these forms.
We can apply consequentialism to a decision by using its two forms: act consequentialism or rule consequentialism. Act consequentialism examines each act individually and determines the right act to be the one that produces the greatest number of consequences consistent with the desired outcome. Frost Rule consequentialism determines the morally right action to be the one that follows a rule whose observance would produce the desired outcome. There are many desired outcomes.
We discuss utilitarianism in greater detail. To some degree everyone must act in her own self interest — the opposite extreme, altruism , means we act completely selflessly and only in the interest of others. The problem with altruism is that eventually, one who is completely selfless will have nothing left to give. Thus, the altruist destroys her ability to act in the interest of others. We can apply consequentialism ubiquitously, because all decisions have measurable consequences.
Deontology requires a rule to govern a decision, and not all decisions have a rule or Duty The term duty is used interchangeably with the term obligation.
The concept identifies something an action that we are required, or bound, to do. Many people feel that morality is fundamentally a matter of duties a Christian, for example, may feel that living a moral life amounts to dutiful adherence to the We can apply consequentialism systematically.
If we assign a numerical value to consequences, we can reach an ethical decision through mathematical evaluation. In summary, the biggest strengths of consequentialism are the relative ease of universal application and its usefulness for practical application. Despite its ease of universal application, applying consequentialist theory to a decision can be quite time-consuming and complicated in practice.
In the ideal case, all consequences are identified and accounted. However, in almost all real decisions this is not possible. The process of identifying and weighing all the consequences, or even a number of consequences deemed sufficient to make the decision, is often too time consuming for decisions that need to be made quickly. A second problem with applying consequentialism is observer or agent limitation.
Once again the ideal case is a completely unbiased ethical agent weighing all possible consequences with equity and neutrality towards all affected parties. This godlike position is not attainable. No one person can know sufficient information about the consequences to make perfect judgments about a decision. In real world cases, observers are supposed to inform themselves as much as possible about the consequences to make the best judgment possible.
A third problem with consequentialism is dealing with actual and expected consequences. It is problematic to evaluate the morality of decision based on actual consequences as well as probable consequences.
If an observer scales the weight of consequences based only on probability, some poor decisions can be made. A highly undesirable consequence may appear to be the result of a morally wrong decision.
So, if Oliver had a wide network of adoring cat lovers because of his friendly, playful nature, unlike Benjy who prefers a life of peaceful solitude I should save Oliver as this would cause the least pain and produce the most pleasure for the people that know him.
For consequentialism, life is a numbers game; an action should aim to make the majority happy, regardless of who they are, and should aim to go for actions that produce minimal pain. So whilst both acts are morally abhorrent, the consequentialist will inevitably say that if these are the only options available then not only should we choose to massacre seven million, but that it would be right to do so.
What matters is not so much the horrific act in itself but the outcome of that act. As consequentialism only looks at the consequences it allows for negative responsibility; that is, being held morally accountable not for some action, but for failing to act to prevent bad things happening. For the consequentialist it is obvious that the right choice for Jim would be to kill one Indian in order to save the lives of the other nineteen.
If Jim refuses to kill anyone then he is therefore responsible for the deaths of the others. So what exactly is wrong with it? In one moment Jim goes from being a tourist in a foreign country to becoming a murderer for the sake of morality. He is likely to have his own commitments in which murder rather than letting others die would go against his most fundamental beliefs.
Does the pain that Jim would feel not need to be taken into account when looking at the best overall outcome? What matters in this example is saving the highest number of lives, and how this is attained is unimportant.
In response to criticism of the unappealing idea that by doing nothing Jim is as responsible for the deaths of the twenty Indians as the captain, the consequentialist can choose to bite the bullet by accepting the idea of negative responsibility; that is, to accept that we can be held morally responsible for not acting. Our duty to others can be illustrated using another example, one used by contemporary utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer.
Imagine you are in your local park feeding the ducks on the pond when you hear a loud splash; a child has fallen into the pond and is struggling to swim. No other adults or swimmers are anywhere to be seen, so without your help the child will drown. It is not unreasonable to say that in this example you should pause your duck feeding and jump in to save the child.
The same could be said for Jim who by doing nothing is responsible for the lives of the twenty Indians. But Jim has to actively kill someone unlike the duck feeder for whom the only bad consequences are that he will get wet and muddy.
Whilst the drowning child example seems to support the existence of negative responsibility, it differs in that there are no commitments or beliefs preventing us from saving the child. Even if nobody would be hurt, our speeding laws mean less people are harmed overall.
Keeping to those rules ensures that. Consequentialism is an attractive ethical approach because it provides clear and practical guidance — at least in situations where outcomes are easy to predict. The theory is also impartial. By asking us to maximise benefit for the largest number of people or, for Peter Singer and other preference utilitarians, any creature who has preferences , we set aside our personal biases and self-interest to benefit others.
One problem with the theory is that it can be hard to measure different benefits to decide which one is morally preferable. Is it better to give my money to charity or spend it studying medicine so I can save lives?
Consequentialism can struggle to compare different moral values. If all we are concerned with is getting good outcomes, this can seem to justify harming some people in order to benefit others.
Is it ethical to allow some people to suffer so more people can live well? By signing up you agree to our privacy policy. Article Being Human.
0コメント