Consequentialism

'The end justifies the means' is a common phrase. It suggests that consequences should determine the value of the actions, and more often than not, is cashed out in terms of the balance of happiness that will result from undertaking, or refraining from an action- e.g. will a given lie on balance maximise happiness? This is repeatedly contrasted with the theory of duties and obligations- e.g. that we should avoid lying at all costs, regardless of the circumstances, because of some moral responsibility.

Consequentialism is an umbrella term for a family of moral theories, all of which evaluate acts, rules, and social institutions according to their consequences. The most familiar by far, is Act Utilitarianism which addresses consequences of acts (as particular decisions) in an effort to maximise ‘utility.’ According to this theory, the ‘right’ acts are those which produce most happiness and welfare. Therefore, in maximising happiness, it might be advisable to implement a system of capital punishment in order to create a deterrent to would-be criminals. So harm inflicted on a small number would prevent latent criminals from causing a greater happiness deficit to society in general.

But suppose there is a situation where I owe you money. Most happiness might be derived by giving it away to a stranger in redistributive fashion. But common sense hints that this would not be appropriate because there was a contractual agreement stipulating that I should pay you.

The way around these murky waters is to adopt so-called Rule Utilitarianism, which says that utility should be used to assess rules, and rules ought to be used to consider acts. The theory examines society, and finds that breaking rules incurs more long-term harm than sticking to them and thus the corollary is that happiness is maximised where people observe rules, and keep their promises. Therefore, people must abide by the rule even if it does not necessarily maximise happiness directly. This can appear to be a complete separation from concentrating on the utility of an act, if the primary consideration is governed by convention. However, there exists a distinction between mere rule-worshipping, and Rule Utilitarianism. Essentially it does not matter what label you give the theory, but more its plausibility meaning that despite the fact that it may not be strictly-speaking Utilitarian, it remains a viable guide to morality. Suffice to say that a rule might be something like ‘break any other rule in order to prevent disasters.’

Utilitarianism is often found abutting deontological and virtue ethics. The former holds that people have fundamental rights- which should be safeguarded even if this means disregarding happiness and welfare, and the latter focuses more on character, rather than actions. These leading theories are left to fight over our common sense moral intuitions. These intuitions exist principally on three levels, from certain restrictions- not to torture or steal- obligations- such as family, friends, and promises- and about doing good in general. The theories are effectively competing over the universal ground- that which relates to intuitions on all levels- and can act as an ethical guide irrespective of the given situation.

Many argue that ultimately, Consequentialism is the most plausible because it makes the best stab regarding common sense morality. Undoubtedly, there are problems such as the degree to which Act Utilitarianism- maximising happiness-comes at expense of self-interest. Imagine for instance that a man is approached by an Oxfam charity collector. Willingly he gives £5, but the woman asks about other £5 pounds in his pocket, which he accordingly hands over. The follow up is ‘but what about car keys?’ As a result, it is very difficult to see how he can stop short of impoverishing himself. The net benefit associated with the act of generosity would imply that he had to keep giving- because the act would be benefiting others more than it would cost. However, it is noticeable that very soon, he would have degraded his living standards significantly. The implication here is that morality requires extreme sacrificing. Rule utilitarianism again holds the solution; on the other hand it says that Joe Bloggs can give 10% of salary to charity and stop there- and still satisfy all his moral intuitions. According to Rule Consquentialism, people should stand by the rules and established social norms unless there are apparent better alternatives.

Crucially, happiness should not be the only important ‘consequence.’ Some claim that relevant factors should include those of non-sentient beings, as well as fareness. Whatever is included in the definition, it is clearly an idea which allows us to confront moral decisions with a dependable framework.