Consequentialist vs nonconsequentialist

Other responses claim that moral rightness depends on foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences, rather than actual ones. Even if we morally ought to maximize utility, it need not be morally wrong to fail to maximize utility.

A different take on the nature of our moral "end" is that the fundamental goal of human behavior is to be happy -- the task then, of course, is to spell out exactly what human happiness consists in.

An action is morally right if and only if it does not violate the set of rules of behaviour whose general acceptance in the community would have the best consequences--that is, at least as good as any rival set of rules or no rules at all.

Other consequentialists are more skeptical about moral intuitions, so they seek foundations outside morality, either in non-normative facts or in non-moral norms. Traditional hedonistic utilitarians who prefer the latter outcome often try to justify egalitarian distributions of goods by appealing to a principle of diminishing marginal utility.

Williams argues that this demands too much of moral agents—since he claims consequentialism demands that they be willing to sacrifice any and all personal projects and commitments in any given circumstance in order to pursue the most beneficent course of action possible.

Most importantly, this argument employs consequentialist reasoning characterized by attributes such as: Suppose that Alice finds a runaway teenager who asks for money to get home.

Arguments for Consequentialism Even if consequentialists can accommodate or explain away common moral intuitions, that might seem only to answer objections without yet giving any positive reason to accept consequentialism.

In weaker versions, simple forbearance from acts tending to harm others is sufficient. European welfare states and social trust. Other consequentialists, however, incorporate a more robust commitment to equality.

The question then is only whether any moral constraints or moral options need to be added to the basic consequentialist factor in moral reasoning. Ovid wrote in his Heroides that Exitus acta probat "The result justifies the deed".

Various theorists are split as to whether the rules are the only determinant of moral behavior or not. Luckily for them, not for him. In short, then, Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism, which is a type of teleological theory.

Then, if deception causes false beliefs, deception is instrumentally bad, and agents ought not to lie without a good reason, even when lying causes no pain or loss of pleasure.

In contrast, an agent-relative approach requires observers to adopt the doctor's perspective in judging whether it would be morally wrong for the doctor to perform the transplant. Oxford University Press, The most common indirect consequentialism is rule consequentialism, which makes the moral rightness of an act depend on the consequences of a rule.

Critics sometimes charge that the average utility could also be increased by killing the worst off, but this claim is not at all clear, because such killing would put everyone in danger since, after the worst off are killed, another group becomes the worst off, and then they might be killed next.

Uneasy Virtue, New York: Essays toward a Morality of Consequence, Cambridge: Whether acts are good or bad depends on moral rules Moral rules are chosen solely on the basis of their consequences So when an individual has a moral choice to make they can ask themselves if there's an appropriate rule to apply and then apply it.

It is hard to see how that assumption could be justified. Libertarianism--People should be free to do as they like as long as they respect the freedom of others to do the same.

Many people will not find this intuition as clear as in the other cases, but those who do find it immoral for the doctor to perform the transplant even in this case will want to modify consequentialism in some other way in order to yield the desired judgment.

This disjunctive syllogism or process of elimination will be only as strong as the set of objections to the alternatives, and the argument fails if even one competitor survives. The goodness of the intention then reflects the balance of the good and evil of these consequences, with no limits imposed upon it by the nature of the act itself—even if it be, say, the breaking of a promise or the execution of an innocent man.

Some virtue ethicists hold that consequentialist theories totally disregard the development and importance of moral character. Some utilitarians bite the bullet and say that Alice's act was morally wrong, but it was blameless wrongdoing, because her motives were good, and she was not responsible, given that she could not have foreseen that her act would cause harm.

Moreover, the argument assumes that the original list is complete. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. For predecessors, see Schneewind The reason is that it is not the doctor who kills the five, and the doctor's duty seems to be to reduce the amount of killing that she herself does.

Now consider Bob's wife, Carol, who notices that the meat is rotten but does not want to have to buy more, so she feeds it to her children anyway, hoping that it will not make them sick; but it does.

The doctor is, instead, required to honor the value of life by not causing loss of life cf. Taking Account of Utilitarianism, Malden: Thus, in an agent-neutral theory, an actor's personal goals do not count any more than anyone else's goals in evaluating what action the actor should take.

A Comparison: Consequentialism Vs. Deontology Vs. Virtue Ethics

Anyway, even if rule utilitarianism accords with some common substantive moral intuitions, it still seems counterintuitive in other ways.

One could, instead, aggregate goods for each individual but not aggregate goods of separate individuals Roberts Since lying is an attempt to deceive, to lie is to attempt to do what is morally wrong in the absence of defeating factors.

Consequentialist theories, then, are those in which a judgment of the overall goodness or badness of the consequences completely decides the question of the rightness or wrongness of the act.


All other theories are non-consequentialist. Note: I'm not sure about the differences between Rule Utility vs. Rule Consequentialism. Stanford simply chooses to call their entry Rule Consequentialism.

Perhaps it Rule Consquentialism is a larger body of study (versus utility which tends to focus on welfare and/or happiness). Apr 10,  · This video quickly goes over the difference between Consequentialism vs.

Non-Consequentialism using the Rubber Gloves Rehearsal studio scandal as an example. Chapter Four: Ethical Theories: Section 3.


Consequential or Non-Consequential: Consequentialist vs. non-consequentialist theories of ethics There are two broad categories of ethical theories concerning the source of value: consequentialist and non-consequentialist. A consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an.

Consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics are moral theories that evaluate morality on the basis of different factors. This Buzzle post explains the consequentialism vs.

deontology vs. Sep 25,  · Consequentialism says that right or wrong depend on the consequences of an act, and that the more good consequences are produced, the better the act.

Consequentialist vs nonconsequentialist
Rated 5/5 based on 46 review
Consequentialism - Wikipedia