Consequentialism

Defining consequentialism

Consequentialism is sometimes conflated with utilitarianism, which is a
mistake, as utilitarianism is but one kind of consequentialism. Even utilitarianism is a broad family of theories, including act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.

Varieties of consequentialism

Consequences for whom

Kinds of consequentialism--in a broad sense of "consequentialism" that not all
philosophers would countenance--can be distinguished by the subject who is
supposed to enjoy the consequences.
That is, one might ask "Consequences for whom?"

Egoism can be understood as individualist consequentialism according to
which the consequences for the agent herself are taken to matter most.
Utilitarianism, on the other hand, can be understood as collectivist
consequentialism according to which the consequences for some large group
(humanity perhaps, or all sentient beings) are of the greatest moment.

These views, while both consequentialist, can be in stark contrast. Individualist consequentialism may license actions which are good for the agent, but are deleterious to general welfare. Collectivist consequentialism may license actions that are good for the collectivity but deadly for individuals. A conciliatory approach is to acknowledge the tension between an agent's interests as an individual and as a member of various groups, seeking to optimize among all of them. In other words, it can be meaningful to speak of an action as being good for me as an individual but bad for me as a citizen of my town.

Some would say that we should not limit our consideration to the interests of moral agents. For example, some environmentalists seem to take the entire environment or ecosystem to be the relevant patient of consequences. The entire universe might be the subject, the best action being the one that brings the most value into the universe, whatever that value might be.

One idea suggested as a middle course between 'genuine egoism' and 'genuine altruism' is ethical fitnessism, which claims that the fittest behaviour is right.

What kinds of consequences

Another way to divide consequentialism is by the kind of consequences that
are taken to matter most.
The most popular form of consequentialism is hedonic consequentialism,
according to which a good consequence is one that produces net pleasure, and
the best consequence is one that produces more net pleasure than any of the
alternatives.
Closely related is eudaimonic consequentialism, according to which full,
flourishing happiness (which may or may not be the same as enjoying a great
deal of pleasure) is the aim.
However, one might fix on some non-psychological good as the preferred
consequence of actions.
For instance, certain ideologies seem to be consequentialist with regard to
material equality or political liberty, regarding gains in these things as
desirable in themselves, regardless of other consequences.
One might also adopt a beauty consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is
to produce beauty.
Similarly, one might find nothing of greater gravity than the production of
knowledge.
One can also assemble packages of goods, all to be promoted equally.
Since in this case there is no overarching consequence to aim for, conflicts
between goods are to be adjudicated not by some ultimate consequentialist
principle, but by the fine contextual discernment and intuition of the agent.

Consequentialism contrasted with other moral theories

Consequentialism is often contrasted with deontology.
However, this may be mistaken.
Many forms of consequentialism at bottom are deontological, demanding that we
simply have a duty to produce a certain kind of consequence, whether or not
that kind of consequence personally moves us.
And even paradigmatic deontological theories, such as Kant's, do not disregard consequences entirely.
For instance, one might argue that for Kant, the more expression of
rational nature, or the good will, the better.
It is difficult to find a theory that posits an intrinsic good (such as the
good will in Kant) in which it is not better to have more of the intrinsic good.
A more fundamental distinction is between theories that demand that agents act
for ends in which they have some personal interest and motivation (actually or
counterfactually) and theories that demand that agents act for ends perhaps
disconnected from their interests and drives.

Consequentialism can also be contrasted with aretaic moral theories such as virtue ethics.
Once again, one must be careful.
Consequentialist theories can consider character in two ways:
(1) Effects on character are consequences.
(2) A consequentialist theory can ask the question, "What kind of virtues will produce the best consequences?"
There can be a difference, however. Whereas consequentialist theories, by definition, posit that consequences of action should be the primary focus of moral theories, aretaic moral theory insists that character rather than the consequences of actions should be the focal point.

Bibliography

• Samuel Scheffler, The Rejection of Consequentialism: A Philosophical Investigation of the Considerations Underlying Rival Moral Conceptions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) ISBN 0198235119.
• Consequentialism and Its Critics, edited by Samuel Scheffler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988) ISBN 0198750730.
• Consequentialism, edited by Stephen Darwall (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002) ISBN 0631231080.
  

  See also

• Ethics
• Egoism
• Utilitarianism
• Utilitarian ethics
• Ethical fitnessism
• Deontology
• Virtue ethics