Consequentialism Flashcards
(5 cards)
I. Consequentialism vs. Social Contract Theory
- What is the basic difference between consequentialist and social contract justifications of the state?
✅ ANSWER 1: What is the basic difference between consequentialist and social contract justifications of the state?
Social contract theorists (like Locke and Rousseau) justify political authority by appealing to consent or natural rights — authority is only legitimate if it respects these deontological principles (i.e. duties, promises, moral rules).
Consequentialists (like Hume and Bentham) reject that. They argue:
Political authority is only justified if it produces better outcomes — such as peace, security, or happiness.
So:
For social contract theory, what matters is how authority was established (did people consent?).
For consequentialism, what matters is what authority produces (does it work well for society?).
II. Hume’s Critique: No Real Contracts
- What is Hume’s argument about the descriptive inaccuracy of social contract theory?
- Why does Hume reject the idea of “tacit consent”?
- What is Hume’s ship analogy meant to show?
✅ ANSWER 2: What is Hume’s argument about the descriptive inaccuracy of social contract theory?
Hume says:
Almost no actual government in history was founded by a contract.
Instead, governments start through:
Force (e.g. conquest, usurpation)
Tradition or habit, not consent
📌 Quote:
“Over the face of the whole earth, there scarcely remain any traces or memory of [an original contract].”
So: It’s just not how things actually work. People don’t obey rulers because they’ve signed anything.
✅ ANSWER 3: Why does Hume reject the idea of “tacit consent”?
Locke says: If you live under a government, you’ve “tacitly consented” by staying there.
Hume says:
That’s not real consent — because most people have no real choice.
A poor person can’t just leave the country.
No language, no money, no realistic alternatives = no freedom to opt out.
📌 Quote:
“We may as well say a man consents to the captain of a ship he was carried onto while asleep.”
✅ ANSWER 4: What is Hume’s ship analogy meant to show?
Imagine:
You’re dragged onto a ship while unconscious.
If you leave, you die.
Does staying mean you “consent” to the captain’s rule?
No — because staying wasn’t a real choice.
📌 Moral: You can’t call it consent if there’s no real alternative.
This directly attacks Locke’s theory of tacit consent.
III. Hume’s Positive Account of Political Obligation
- According to Hume, why do we have an obligation to obey political authority?
- Why does Hume think promise-keeping is also a consequentialist duty?
✅ ANSWER 5: According to Hume, why do we have an obligation to obey political authority?
For Hume, the obligation to obey is instead grounded in its beneficial social consequences. It is obvious, he thinks, that a peaceful society cannot be maintained without a general willingness to obey the sovereign power, and that a peaceful society brings us great advantages
🧠 TL;DR: We obey not because we agreed to, but because it’s better for everyone if we do.
✅ ANSWER 6: Why does Hume think promise-keeping is also a consequentialist duty?
The social contract theorist wants to ground our obligation to obey the sovereign in a prior obligation to keep our promises. But why are we obliged to keep our promises? Because, Hume argues, of its beneficial consequences: if people were to pay no regard to their promises, then much of social life, e.g. commerce, would be impossible.
Promisekeeping, like political obedience, is obligatory because it is to our advantage. But this means that appeals to a ‘social contract’ are, in the end, redundant.
IV. Bentham’s Utility-Based Critique
- What is Bentham’s main principle for evaluating political authority?
- Why does Bentham think that “promises” aren’t what really bind us morally?
- According to Bentham, when are we justified in disobeying the state?
✅ ANSWER 7: What is Bentham’s main principle for evaluating political authority?
Bentham = Utilitarian. His core idea:
The only thing that matters is whether a government produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
This is called the principle of utility.
So:
Political authority is legitimate if it tends to benefit society overall.
It has nothing to do with consent, natural rights, or moral promises.
📌 Quote:
“Subjects should obey… so long as the probable mischiefs of obedience are less than the probable mischiefs of resistance.”
🧠 TL;DR: Authority is justified by outcomes, not ideals.
✅ ANSWER 8: Why does Bentham think that “promises” aren’t what really bind us morally?
Bentham says:
Promises matter only because keeping them usually brings good consequences.
Example:
If you promised to obey a king who now wants to harm you, that promise means nothing.
Why? Because keeping it would make things worse.
📌 Quote:
“What need of saying the one PROMISED to govern, the other PROMISED to obey, when the fact is otherwise?”
🧠 So: Promising isn’t magical. What matters is what happens when the promise is kept
✅ ANSWER 9: According to Bentham, when are we justified in disobeying the state?
When obedience would lead to greater harm than disobedience.
So:
If the government causes more suffering than benefit, you should resist.
If the government is flawed but still prevents chaos, you should obey.
📌 Rule of thumb:
Obey the state only if doing so leads to better outcomes overal
Is the Social Contract Redundant?
Some people argue that the idea of a social contract (an agreement that forms the basis of society and government) might be unnecessary or redundant.
However, for most social contract theorists, the idea of a contract has an important theoretical advantage. This advantage is that it explains our duty to obey laws as part of our general obligation to keep promises. This is important because it's fair—it respects the idea that all people are morally free and equal.
On the other hand, if we say that some people have a natural duty to obey others (just because of who they are), that would not respect moral freedom and equality. So, the social contract is not redundant because it justifies obedience to laws in a way that still respects individual freedom and equality
For Hume and consequentialists, Obligation to obey the law —–> comes from the fact that it promotes the good, no unnecessary step that it came from obligation to keep the promise which comes from the fact that it will promote the good.
