Transcript Two Major Types of Ethical Theories

Consequentialism
&
Nonconsequentialism
A dialectic approach
Two Major Types of Ethical Theories
▪ The rightness or wrongness of an action is
decided in terms of its consequences.
▪ An action can be in itself right or wrong
regardless of consequences.
Is it ever right to lie?
▪ Is an action right if it seeks to avoid bad
consequences or produce good ones?
▪ Can an action always be wrong?
▪ Is it always wrong to lie, even for a good
cause?
Benefit Maximization
▪ Consequentialist theories are committed to the
principle of benefit maximization.
▪ The best and most just decision is the one that
causes the most good for the most people.
▪ One must balance the benefits and harms of doing
something against the benefits and harms of not
doing it.
▪ But what is good?
Intrinsically valuable
▪ What is it that makes something worthwhile for its
own sake? Intrinsic value.
▪ Sometimes we do things in order to achieve or
receive something else. Instrumental value.
▪ Other times we do something just for the sake of
doing it without trying to achieve or receive
anything else. Intrinsic value.
Consequentialists’ Goal: Do the most
good
▪ It is pretty easy to produce good results: Every cloud
must have a silver lining.
▪ It is even hard to do something that does no good
at all.
▪ So consequentialists don’t just seek to do good;
they seek to do the most good possible.
▪ The good must be maximized.
What is the good?
▪ Hedonism says the good is pleasure and happiness.
▪ Catholic Catechism: God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in
a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his
own blessed life.
The greatest good for the largest
number? Utilitarianism
▪ Assume pleasure is good and pain is bad.
▪ Find the person’s utility: sum of all good - sum of all bad.
▪ Find the utility of a whole society: the average utility.
▪ Policies that lead to the highest utility are the most just.
▪ Some utilitarianists apply these arguments to general rules
or policies.
▪ Some utilitarianists apply the arguments to individual
actions.
Problems with Consequentialism
▪ We can’t know all the consequences of an action.
▪ How can we measure pleasure or pain so we know the utility?
▪ We have to decide the morality of every action since there are no
general rules.
▪ Without rules we might do what “works” for us rather than what is
right.
▪ Sadists receive pleasure from being cruel. Nazis believed it was good
for most people if they exterminated the Jews.
▪ Result of this theoretical approach is to use some persons as means.
Nonconsequentialists:
Respect for Persons
▪ A maxim or principle is a moral rule. These should be based
on the Golden Rule so that we act in ways that respect the
equal worth of moral agent. This is the principle of equal
respect for persons.
▪ This principle requires us to treat people as ends rather
than means, and regard them as free, rational, and
responsible moral agents even it we don’t agree with them.
▪ We must give priority to providing education and
information so that persons can act as free moral agents.
▪ All persons are of equal value even though they differ in
ability.
Problems with Nonconsequentialism
▪ The basis of rules are consequences?
▪ Can we really apply a rule universally without
exception?
▪ How specific can we make our rules?
Combine these two theoretical stances?
▪ Consequentialist & nonconsequentialist ethics do not compete
▪ Most times people make good moral decisions without using a
theory. Often we use a theory to explain our good decision.
▪ Theories of ethics are most helpful in deciding hard cases:
There is a tension between the consequences and a principle.
▪ Aren’t there other theories?
– Virtue Ethics -- Ethics of caring --- Ethics of justice
Consequentialist Questions
▪ What is the good we are trying to do?
▪ Is this good genuinely worthwhile?
▪ Whom are we trying to benefit?
▪ Who else is affected?
Nonconsequentialist Questions
▪ Are we being consistent?
▪ How would we feel were we to be treated this way?
▪ Are we resepecting those with whom we are
interacting?
▪ Are the benefits distributed fairly?
▪ Are we treating people as ends rather than means?
Questions from other theories
▪ How will our actions affect relationships?
▪ How will our actions affect our communities?
▪ Since in making a choice we are shaping our own
character, do we wish to become the kind of person
we may beome if we make this kind of choice
often?
Ethics as dialectical
▪ Hard cases do not necessarily have one right answer.
Persons may often disagree about what action is most
ethical.
▪ Ethical reasoning often begins with our intuitions about
what is right or wrong. We try to formulate principles and
test them out in cases. Sometimes we must alter our
principles; sometimes our principles will alter our initial
intuitions. The process is not unidirectional. It is dialectical.
▪ When we reason ethically, we seek a balance among a
range of considerations.
Resources