Consequentialism and global poverty
= maximize collective welfare/ happiness: the balance of pain and
pleasure
We are all governed by pain and pleasure (fundamental description
human nature)
Any moral system have to take that into account
PRINCIPLE: create the greatest good for the greatest number (John
Stuart Mill)
Maximize the amount of goodness in the world (what is good and bad) ->
optimific (greatest balance between of benefits and drawbacks)
Misinterpretations consequentialism
Not necessarily favor the many
o Ex. Give 90% population 50 euro gasoline OR spending same
amount money on 10% population without shelter
o Not always agree with majority
Not necessarily promote greatest amount happiness
o Look at other side coin (creation of pain)
o Ex. Gladiator fights: create most happiness but more
important more pain
“Look to the future”: look at expected results
Structure consequentialism
1. Identify the intrinsically good
a. Monetary benefits, safety and security population
2. Identify the intrinsically bad
a. Where is the threshold of serious harm
b. We cannot be playing God (religious argument): we cant
decide who can live
3. Determine your options
4. For each option determine good/ bad results
5. Pick the action that yields the best balance
a. Cost- benefit analysis
Utilitarianism: origins
Jeremy Bentham
Best consequences: greatest possible surplus of pleasure over pain
Critique: “philosophy suitable for pigs not humans”
o John Stuart Mill: if we only look at the pain and pleasure, we
feel as a result of an experience (we can’t distinguish good
and bad pleasure”
1
,John Stuart Mill
Introduce the idea of quality of pleasure
o Not all pleasures should be considered the same
Henry Sidgwick
What is a higher quality of something other than getting more
satisfaction out of it?
Maximize people preferences (only way to determine what kind of
pleasure it is)
Attractions consequentialism
Impartiality
=welfare of each person is equally valuable
Impartial concern for everyone whose well-being might be affected by our
actions
Conflict resolution
Provides guidance about how to resolve moral conflicts: maximize general
well-being
Moral flexibility
No moral rule is absolute (not violated under any circumstances)
o Ex. Cannibalism
Any of those actions morally repugnant actions may be allowed
under exceptional circumstances
Scope moral community
Broad description: condition= ability to suffer
Includes animals, infants, severely mentally disabled,…
o The argument of marginal cases: conclusion= it is almost
always immortal to kill and eat animals and to painfully
experiment on them
Justify conventional moral wisdom
Objections to consequentialism
Measure and aggregate well-being
(add up all benefits)- (add up all the harms)?
Ex. Measure benefits:
o Degree to which our desires where satisfied
o Happiness and autonomy (sometimes you need to choose
between them)
o Quantity AND quality of pleasure
2
, Argument from value measurement
o Utilitarianism is true only if there is a precise unit of
measurement that can determine the value of an action’s
result
o There is no such unit of measurement
o Utilitarianism is false
Response: some clear cases but no precise way to quantify it
What is wrong with putting a price on a human life?
Demandingness
Deliberation and calculative load (Goodin)
Huge amount information needed (result in wasted opportunities)
<-> in most situations we can rely on common wisdom to know
what is beneficial/harmful
Motivation
Requires us to be saints (always on the lookout for chances to do
good)
<-> plausible moral theory is one most of us can live by
Action
“Do all the good you can, by all the means you can”: great and
constant self-sacrifice
o How much self-sacrifice can a moral theory demand?
Application: global world poverty
ASSUMPTION: fact of poverty is morally bad (suffering and death from lack
of food, shelter and medical care are bad)
Strong version
Suffering and death from lack of food/ shelter/ medical care are bad
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening,
without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we
ought to do it
We can prevent people from dying from starvation by giving money
to famine relief
Giving maximally would be the way to prevent poverty without
sacrificing anything of comparable moral important (implicit
premise)
Therefore we ought to give maximally to famine relief
o As much as we can without becoming wore off than the poor
themselves
Moderate version
Suffering and death from lack of food/ shelter/ medical care are bad
3
, If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening,
without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we
ought to do it
We can prevent people from dying from starvation by giving money
to famine relief
Giving much more than we currently do would be the way to prevent
poverty without sacrificing anything morally significant (implicit
premise)
Therefore we ought to give more to famine relief than we currently
do
Generalization drowning child example
No difference between global poor
Distance does not relieve your from your saving duty
The presence of other people who can save the child does not
relieve you from your saving duty
Objections generalization drowning child example
Distance matters
Better judgement what needs to be done to a person near us
Not in age global village -> used as an excuse to do little
If we accept principle impartiality, universalizability, equality,… ->
distance does not matter
Numbers can make a difference
My duty changes depending on what other people do
Fair share is in nonfactual, hypothetical or imaginary circumstances -
> does not determine what is right to do in actual circumstances
o The less people do the right thing, the more I am expected to
do
Current moral beliefs
Why assume our current moral beliefs are the right ones?
Ordinary capacities
Basic moral code not to far from ordinary capacity needed ->
otherwise breakdown of compliance
Drawn line between conduct that is required and conduct that is
good but not required
o Distinction between charity and duty is wrong
o Ex. Giving to the poor with sacrificing yourself is not charity
but your duty
Moral standards can have effect on decisions
4
= maximize collective welfare/ happiness: the balance of pain and
pleasure
We are all governed by pain and pleasure (fundamental description
human nature)
Any moral system have to take that into account
PRINCIPLE: create the greatest good for the greatest number (John
Stuart Mill)
Maximize the amount of goodness in the world (what is good and bad) ->
optimific (greatest balance between of benefits and drawbacks)
Misinterpretations consequentialism
Not necessarily favor the many
o Ex. Give 90% population 50 euro gasoline OR spending same
amount money on 10% population without shelter
o Not always agree with majority
Not necessarily promote greatest amount happiness
o Look at other side coin (creation of pain)
o Ex. Gladiator fights: create most happiness but more
important more pain
“Look to the future”: look at expected results
Structure consequentialism
1. Identify the intrinsically good
a. Monetary benefits, safety and security population
2. Identify the intrinsically bad
a. Where is the threshold of serious harm
b. We cannot be playing God (religious argument): we cant
decide who can live
3. Determine your options
4. For each option determine good/ bad results
5. Pick the action that yields the best balance
a. Cost- benefit analysis
Utilitarianism: origins
Jeremy Bentham
Best consequences: greatest possible surplus of pleasure over pain
Critique: “philosophy suitable for pigs not humans”
o John Stuart Mill: if we only look at the pain and pleasure, we
feel as a result of an experience (we can’t distinguish good
and bad pleasure”
1
,John Stuart Mill
Introduce the idea of quality of pleasure
o Not all pleasures should be considered the same
Henry Sidgwick
What is a higher quality of something other than getting more
satisfaction out of it?
Maximize people preferences (only way to determine what kind of
pleasure it is)
Attractions consequentialism
Impartiality
=welfare of each person is equally valuable
Impartial concern for everyone whose well-being might be affected by our
actions
Conflict resolution
Provides guidance about how to resolve moral conflicts: maximize general
well-being
Moral flexibility
No moral rule is absolute (not violated under any circumstances)
o Ex. Cannibalism
Any of those actions morally repugnant actions may be allowed
under exceptional circumstances
Scope moral community
Broad description: condition= ability to suffer
Includes animals, infants, severely mentally disabled,…
o The argument of marginal cases: conclusion= it is almost
always immortal to kill and eat animals and to painfully
experiment on them
Justify conventional moral wisdom
Objections to consequentialism
Measure and aggregate well-being
(add up all benefits)- (add up all the harms)?
Ex. Measure benefits:
o Degree to which our desires where satisfied
o Happiness and autonomy (sometimes you need to choose
between them)
o Quantity AND quality of pleasure
2
, Argument from value measurement
o Utilitarianism is true only if there is a precise unit of
measurement that can determine the value of an action’s
result
o There is no such unit of measurement
o Utilitarianism is false
Response: some clear cases but no precise way to quantify it
What is wrong with putting a price on a human life?
Demandingness
Deliberation and calculative load (Goodin)
Huge amount information needed (result in wasted opportunities)
<-> in most situations we can rely on common wisdom to know
what is beneficial/harmful
Motivation
Requires us to be saints (always on the lookout for chances to do
good)
<-> plausible moral theory is one most of us can live by
Action
“Do all the good you can, by all the means you can”: great and
constant self-sacrifice
o How much self-sacrifice can a moral theory demand?
Application: global world poverty
ASSUMPTION: fact of poverty is morally bad (suffering and death from lack
of food, shelter and medical care are bad)
Strong version
Suffering and death from lack of food/ shelter/ medical care are bad
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening,
without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we
ought to do it
We can prevent people from dying from starvation by giving money
to famine relief
Giving maximally would be the way to prevent poverty without
sacrificing anything of comparable moral important (implicit
premise)
Therefore we ought to give maximally to famine relief
o As much as we can without becoming wore off than the poor
themselves
Moderate version
Suffering and death from lack of food/ shelter/ medical care are bad
3
, If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening,
without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we
ought to do it
We can prevent people from dying from starvation by giving money
to famine relief
Giving much more than we currently do would be the way to prevent
poverty without sacrificing anything morally significant (implicit
premise)
Therefore we ought to give more to famine relief than we currently
do
Generalization drowning child example
No difference between global poor
Distance does not relieve your from your saving duty
The presence of other people who can save the child does not
relieve you from your saving duty
Objections generalization drowning child example
Distance matters
Better judgement what needs to be done to a person near us
Not in age global village -> used as an excuse to do little
If we accept principle impartiality, universalizability, equality,… ->
distance does not matter
Numbers can make a difference
My duty changes depending on what other people do
Fair share is in nonfactual, hypothetical or imaginary circumstances -
> does not determine what is right to do in actual circumstances
o The less people do the right thing, the more I am expected to
do
Current moral beliefs
Why assume our current moral beliefs are the right ones?
Ordinary capacities
Basic moral code not to far from ordinary capacity needed ->
otherwise breakdown of compliance
Drawn line between conduct that is required and conduct that is
good but not required
o Distinction between charity and duty is wrong
o Ex. Giving to the poor with sacrificing yourself is not charity
but your duty
Moral standards can have effect on decisions
4
