Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)
This module is divided into three parts. The 1st part introduces consequentialism
as an ethical theory, and shows its differences from the other equally influential ethical
theories. The 2nd part is a general survey of the different versions of consequentialism.
The 3rd part, which focuses on the theory's most influential version, namely
utilitarianism, explains the fundamental tenets of utilitarianism and the differences
among its various forms.
A.1 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. 2 The 3 kinds of Normative Ethics
There are 3 aspects of an action that are generally regarded
as relevant when evaluating its morality: in consequences,
the rules that it follows or violates, and the character of its
agent. In consideration of its consequences, an action is
judged to be morally good when it results to something good
or desirable, and morally bad if otherwise. Good or desirable
consequences may mean various things. They may refer to consequences that bring
about pleasurable experiences or prevent painful experiences, fulfil desires or satisfy
preferences, promote well-being, or improve the quality of life of persons.
In consideration of the rule that it follows or violates, an action is judged to be
morally good if it follows a good rule or does not conform to a bad rule, and morally bad if
it follows a bad rule or violates a good rule. And in consideration of the character of the
person who performs an action, an action is judged to be rally good if the said action is
something that a person of good character, usually called a virtuous person, would do,
and morally bad if otherwise (that is, if it is something that a vicious person would do).
This way of judging the morality of an action is what is at work when people say, for
instance, that an act of cowardice is morally wrong because cowardice is not a character
trait of a virtuous person (or that such an act is not something that a virtuous person
would do).
Most people consider all three aspects of an action in judging the morality of
actions in varying times and situations. There may be cases where all 3 aspects occur in
compatible ways, like when the action resulting in good consequences happens to follow
a good rule and be done by a virtuous person. Undeniably, however, there are cases
where a conflict arises among these moral considerations, in which, for instance, the
, action that results in good consequences violates a good rule or the action done by a
virtuous person does not result in good consequences. In cases of conflict among the
three, one is inevitably faced with the question of which among the various moral
considerations is fundamental, and thus should prevail over the others. The different
answers, along with their supporting arguments, given to this question by philosophers
have given rise to the three (normative) ethical theories of consequentialism, deontology,
and virtue ethics. Accordingly, as a response to the said question, consequentialism
claims that it should be the consequences of actions, deontology claims that it should be
the rules that actions follow or violate, and virtue ethics claims that it should be the
character of the agent or the person performing such actions.
A. 3 Intrinsic and Instrumental Good
The good consequence that consequentialism regards as the basis for the moral
goodness of an act is not just any kind of good or desirable consequence; but one that is
good in itself or desirable for its own sake. Philosophers usually refer to this kind of good
as intrinsic good. Consequentialism, as explained by J.J.C. Smart, is "a theory according
to which rightness or wrongness of an act is determined solely by the intrinsic goodness
or badness of its various consequences. It is not enough that the consequences are
good for the actions that cause them to be morally good; they should be intrinsically
good.
The intrinsic good is desired for its own sake, not in order to achieve something
else that is also desired. The intrinsic good is contrasted with the instrumental good,
referring to the kind of good which is desired for the sake of something else. An
instrumental good is desired because it serves as a means to achieve a further good,
either a further instrumental good or an intrinsic good. A standard example of an intrinsic
good is happiness (which most consequentialists equate with pleasure). Happiness is
regarded as intrinsically good because one desires it for itself, that is, one desites to be
happy just to be happy (or just to experience it). In contrast, the things one desires in
order to be happy, like a successful career, good relationships, health, fame, wealth, and
being able to help people and to contribute to social development, among others, are all
instrumental goods for they are desired because they serve as means to achieve
happiness.
In being good in itself, the intrinsic good does not derive its goodness from
another good. In this regard, the intrinsic good is also called inherent good. In contrast,
the instrumental good is not being good in itself, it derives its goodness from another
good; and for this reason, is also called derived good. Furthermore, the intrinsic good,
being good in itself, is always good whatever the condition of its occurrence is. It remains
desirable even if nobody actually desires it. For this reason, the intrinsic good is also
called unconditional good. In contrast, the instrumental good is good only under certain
conditions, generally when it serves as a means to achieve a further good; and for this
reason, is also called conditional good.
This module is divided into three parts. The 1st part introduces consequentialism
as an ethical theory, and shows its differences from the other equally influential ethical
theories. The 2nd part is a general survey of the different versions of consequentialism.
The 3rd part, which focuses on the theory's most influential version, namely
utilitarianism, explains the fundamental tenets of utilitarianism and the differences
among its various forms.
A.1 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. 2 The 3 kinds of Normative Ethics
There are 3 aspects of an action that are generally regarded
as relevant when evaluating its morality: in consequences,
the rules that it follows or violates, and the character of its
agent. In consideration of its consequences, an action is
judged to be morally good when it results to something good
or desirable, and morally bad if otherwise. Good or desirable
consequences may mean various things. They may refer to consequences that bring
about pleasurable experiences or prevent painful experiences, fulfil desires or satisfy
preferences, promote well-being, or improve the quality of life of persons.
In consideration of the rule that it follows or violates, an action is judged to be
morally good if it follows a good rule or does not conform to a bad rule, and morally bad if
it follows a bad rule or violates a good rule. And in consideration of the character of the
person who performs an action, an action is judged to be rally good if the said action is
something that a person of good character, usually called a virtuous person, would do,
and morally bad if otherwise (that is, if it is something that a vicious person would do).
This way of judging the morality of an action is what is at work when people say, for
instance, that an act of cowardice is morally wrong because cowardice is not a character
trait of a virtuous person (or that such an act is not something that a virtuous person
would do).
Most people consider all three aspects of an action in judging the morality of
actions in varying times and situations. There may be cases where all 3 aspects occur in
compatible ways, like when the action resulting in good consequences happens to follow
a good rule and be done by a virtuous person. Undeniably, however, there are cases
where a conflict arises among these moral considerations, in which, for instance, the
, action that results in good consequences violates a good rule or the action done by a
virtuous person does not result in good consequences. In cases of conflict among the
three, one is inevitably faced with the question of which among the various moral
considerations is fundamental, and thus should prevail over the others. The different
answers, along with their supporting arguments, given to this question by philosophers
have given rise to the three (normative) ethical theories of consequentialism, deontology,
and virtue ethics. Accordingly, as a response to the said question, consequentialism
claims that it should be the consequences of actions, deontology claims that it should be
the rules that actions follow or violate, and virtue ethics claims that it should be the
character of the agent or the person performing such actions.
A. 3 Intrinsic and Instrumental Good
The good consequence that consequentialism regards as the basis for the moral
goodness of an act is not just any kind of good or desirable consequence; but one that is
good in itself or desirable for its own sake. Philosophers usually refer to this kind of good
as intrinsic good. Consequentialism, as explained by J.J.C. Smart, is "a theory according
to which rightness or wrongness of an act is determined solely by the intrinsic goodness
or badness of its various consequences. It is not enough that the consequences are
good for the actions that cause them to be morally good; they should be intrinsically
good.
The intrinsic good is desired for its own sake, not in order to achieve something
else that is also desired. The intrinsic good is contrasted with the instrumental good,
referring to the kind of good which is desired for the sake of something else. An
instrumental good is desired because it serves as a means to achieve a further good,
either a further instrumental good or an intrinsic good. A standard example of an intrinsic
good is happiness (which most consequentialists equate with pleasure). Happiness is
regarded as intrinsically good because one desires it for itself, that is, one desites to be
happy just to be happy (or just to experience it). In contrast, the things one desires in
order to be happy, like a successful career, good relationships, health, fame, wealth, and
being able to help people and to contribute to social development, among others, are all
instrumental goods for they are desired because they serve as means to achieve
happiness.
In being good in itself, the intrinsic good does not derive its goodness from
another good. In this regard, the intrinsic good is also called inherent good. In contrast,
the instrumental good is not being good in itself, it derives its goodness from another
good; and for this reason, is also called derived good. Furthermore, the intrinsic good,
being good in itself, is always good whatever the condition of its occurrence is. It remains
desirable even if nobody actually desires it. For this reason, the intrinsic good is also
called unconditional good. In contrast, the instrumental good is good only under certain
conditions, generally when it serves as a means to achieve a further good; and for this
reason, is also called conditional good.
