Consequentialism Flashcards
Is utilitarianism a consequentialist theory?
Yes
What does consequentialism mean for the way utilitarians must think?
Must be impersonal
They must only consider which action will maximise happiness when making decisions. Intentions do not matter only the end results.
What three things do consequential moral theories forget about humans?
- Individuals have desires, projects and commitments that will give them reason to act in pursuit of their own ends and give special value to their own life.
- As human beings we have special ties to those we are close to, our family members, friends or members of our community, we act in their interests.
- There are claims of other people not to be maltreated
What do deontological ethical theories suggest?
The rightness and wrongness of actions themselves is what is important as opposed to the the consequences of those actions.
What is the supermarket example?
Scenario 1: bomb is about to go off in a supermarket, someone becomes aware of the bomb and calls it in. The police evacuate the supermarket and the caller saves many lives.
Scenario 2: somebody makes a I’m hoax call to the police claiming there is a bomb in the supermarket, their intention to waste police time and resources, this is a joke to them. Coincidentally there is a bomb in the supermarket, the call saves many lives.
Does intention really not matter here? In consequentialist theory these two people have done an equally good thing. Hmm surely intentions matter in doing the ethically correct thing.
How can the trolley problem be altered to include a loved one?
1 loved one v 5 strangers
Surely you would save your loved one
Why is it that utilitarian impartiality makes it difficult for humans to form close personal relationships?
Crisp hospital visit example
Your friend visits you in hospital, showing what you interpret as genuine care and concern for your well being.
You thank them for coming and they say ‘oh that’s ok, utilitarianism required it of me’
This would really upset you and ruin your friendship
They would visit the person next door if it bought more happiness (that person may not get any visits)
The objective impartiality required by utilitarianisms lack of regard for intentions, alienates is from important aspects of the human experience, close personal relationships and obligations to the people we are close to.
Can Mill’s use of customary morality allow for some level of intention mattering
Rules are utilitarian as they are born out of welfare maximisation
May have rules such as ‘be kind to friends’
Friendship- welfare maximising, we gain utility through friendship
Does Mill see utilitarianism as a decision making procedure or a moral theory? Does this make a difference to having close relationships with other humans as a utilitarian.
Moral theory
A utilitarian can visit in hospital with the same intentions and thoughts as anyone else
However this multi-level defence seems weird that a friend would value you purely for the welfare all human connections have.
-lack of appreciation for the special bond of friendship
Intentions do matter in human relationships
Does the consequentialist view ignore our inbuilt sense of right and wrong and ability to emphasise with the pain of others?
We have empathy, we may not mind the sound of nails scratching down a blackboard but we should still acknowledge that others don’t like it and not do it.
We naturally feel empathy and don’t like the distress of others
To think purely in terms of consequences is disconnected to a level of sociopathy.
Explain the Jim and the Indians example
Jim given choice between killing 1 and letting 19 go or having the dictator kill all 20
Is it really just simple maths?
Jim May feel moral constraints that require him not to kill or that morally does not require him to act.
Utilitarians May respond that murder is seen as wrong due to the badness associated with death, so more death= more badness.
But it does seem that
Morality not as simple as consequences
What if Jim wants to kill someone. This surely can’t be justified on the basis of common sense morality.
On utilitarian thinking, if Jim refuses to kill, he is as bad as the dictator who kills all 20
How does Williams define common sense morality?
‘Each of us is specifically responsible for what he does’
What is the utilitarian principle of negative responsibility?
What impact does this have on our lives?
We are responsible for the consequences of actions we don’t do as much as we are responsible for actions we do
Kagan points out that this means we can never enjoy ourselves. All time and money spent on luxuries should be donated to charity. By not donating your money, you are directly responsible for the deaths of starving children. However the intention behind going to the cinema isn’t that a child dies, is going to the cinema really an evil thing? Implausible
How can we get out of issues caused by negative responsibility?
Double effect - distinguished between direct and oblique intentions
Strict duty. Feeding your own kids, they will die if you don’t and it’s your fault
Oblique consequence- you don’t feed kids in a third world country, unintended death.
Double effect doctrine eliminates problems but in itself seems to suggest that intentions matter. However even if we reject double effect these examples show that size of evil need to not always be our guide to morality.
How can utilitarianism explain the value you put on your own life?
Utilitarianism seems to suggest that superegotary actions are required???
You must jump in to save a drowning person even if it endangers your life
You should sacrifice yourself if others go free
Not how we commonly see things, superegotary actions rewarded but not required
