FAQ

1. I still don’t understand the main ingredients of consequentialism. It is difficult to keep in mind all that is involved. Could you give me a concise rundown of the main points?

That’s a good one. I like to think that we can define different consequentialist theories by determining how they stand on three things.

(1) Which consequences count,

(2) to whom, and

(3) how consequences are evaluated.

Let’s take them one at a time.

First, which consequences count? Different theories take different things seriously. They think in terms of what counts most, or should count most, to humans. Some philosophers think that everything that is good amounts to happiness. Others think that what counts is perfecting human traits.

We should point out that in bioethics, we are dealing, mainly, with patients and health care systems, including health care personnel. So a good candidate for what counts is health. Others would still say that what counts is happiness. While yet others would say that one counts is quality of life, something that is different from health and from happiness.

Second, who should we consider when evaluating consequences?

Some say that only you or I count when you or I are making moral decisions. This is called “egoism.” I consider only what happens to me, and you consider only what happens to you. Some think this is the opposite of good moral thinking. Utilitarians strongly reject this, thinking that everyone counts equally.

In health care, we may say that only the patient counts, or that all involved count equally, including health care providers.

Finally, how do we evaluate consequences?

Some say that we are morally obligated to go for the most. So I should pick the action that gives the most happiness, or the greatest health, and so on, to all or, in some theories, only to me.

Other theorists say that this is too much. Instead we are obligated to gain a reasonable amount, or an adequate amount, of what counts. Instead of doing the action that produces the most good, we are only morally obligated, they say, to pick an action that comes up to a required minimum.

That’s it. Each consequentialist theory is defined by the consequences that count, for whom, and how much of it.

Let’s see how this applies to utilitarianism, as developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Start Mill. This theory is stated:

Always do that action which produces the greatest happiness (or pleasure) for the greatest number of people.

Here the consequence that matter is happiness defined as pleasure. Everyone counts equally, even future people. And we are obligated to try to produce the greatest happiness, not merely an adequate amount.

By thinking about these three ingredients we can better analyze what is at stake in consequentialist reasoning.

Hope that makes sense.

2. I once heard someone mention counterexamples to moral theories. What are they and what do they accomplish?

A counterexample is an action that follows from some principle in a theory. Yet it is widely thought to be morally wrong.

For example, lets imagine convicting a person of a crime when only the police know him or her to be innocent. The conviction may make everyone in a town feel more secure. All might gain, except the imprisoned person. So the conviction might produce the greatest good. Thus, consequentialist thinking might support the conviction. Yet convicting an innocent person seems wrong.

This is a counterexample to utilitarianism. It indicates a real weakness in the theory. Still, utilitarians might argue back that the security produced is false, leading to problems, and that the pain inflicted is very great.

Counterexamples provide ways to evaluate moral theories. Theories that suffer from too many counterexamples

3. Student: I can’t figure the first thing out about Kantian ethics. It doesn’t make sense to me. Can you help?

Teacher: I know what you mean. Many people struggle with his theory.

Kant thought that his theory is philosophical version of the Golden Rule,

“Do to others what you would have them do to you.”

People who steal money, would not want others to steal from them. They want everyone else not to steal. But still they want to do that. Imagine if everyone were allowed to steal. That would be chaos. So stealing only makes sense if people who do it are exceptions to the general rule. Kant thinks that anytime an action would be bad if all did, it should not be done by anyone.

I hope this helps a little.

Student: Well, yes, a little. For example, no one likes to be lied to. We trust what others say. If everyone lied we wouldn’t be able to communicate. So lies only work when people expect the truth because most people, most of the time, tell the truth. But what is so bad about the occasional lie. That won’t matter much.

Teacher: That’s the problem in understanding Kantian ethics. So what if a person lies now and again. That won’t matter much. Well, it matters in terms of morality. That person who lies is using others, taking advantage of the fact that most people don’t lie most of the time. It is wrong to take advantage of others in this way.

Student. Do you think this is all there is to the categorical imperative.

Teacher. No. That’s too bad. It is more complex. Because we have to figure out whether it is consistent to allow all people to do something. That is sometimes hard to determine, and sometimes doesn’t seem to give us very good results.

Suppose everyone worked as a philosopher, like me. Well, that would be a real disaster. For example, no one would be growing food. Yet it is fine to be a philosopher; in fact, I think it is a pretty good thing. So instead we might ask whether it is consistent that everyone choose his or her own profession. That seems OK.

But this exposes a problem in Kantian ethics. How we ask the question seems to be a crucial part of the test. Since there are many ways to ask such questions, this leads us to wonder about how effective the theory is.

Student: I still like the idea that it is wrong to make an exception of oneself, and that we should never treat a person merely as a means.

Teacher: Well, of course, this is one of the greatest theories ever produced. Using the Kantian categorical imperative may be helpful in thinking through a moral problem, and considering how we treat others part of what morality is all about.