Consequentialism
[2] Similarly, Robert Nozick argued for a theory that is mostly consequentialist, but incorporates inviolable "side-constraints" which restrict the sort of actions agents are permitted to do.
[2] Derek Parfit argued that, in practice, when understood properly, rule consequentialism, Kantian deontology, and contractualism would all end up prescribing the same behavior.
This concept is exemplified by the famous aphorism, "the end justifies the means," variously attributed to Machiavelli or Ovid[8] i.e. if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.
It can be argued that the existence of phenomenal consciousness and "qualia" is required for the experience of pleasure or pain to have an ethical significance.
"[22] The word "order" refers to Mozi's stance against warfare and violence, which he viewed as pointless and a threat to social stability; "material wealth" of Mohist consequentialism refers to basic needs, like shelter and clothing; and "increase in population" relates to the time of Mozi, war and famine were common, and population growth was seen as a moral necessity for a harmonious society.
[23] In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, Stanford sinologist David Shepherd Nivison writes that the moral goods of Mohism "are interrelated: more basic wealth, then more reproduction; more people, then more production and wealth...if people have plenty, they would be good, filial, kind, and so on unproblematically.
"[26] Ethical egoism can be understood as a consequentialist theory according to which the consequences for the individual agent are taken to matter more than any other result.
[27] Ethical altruism can be seen as a consequentialist theory which prescribes that an individual take actions that have the best consequences for everyone, not necessarily including themselves (similar to selflessness).
[28] This was advocated by Auguste Comte, who coined the term altruism, and whose ethics can be summed up in the phrase "Live for others.
"[29] The two-level approach involves engaging in critical reasoning and considering all the possible ramifications of one's actions before making an ethical decision, but reverting to generally reliable moral rules when one is not in a position to stand back and examine the dilemma as a whole.
However, negative utilitarianism lays out a consequentialist theory that focuses solely on minimizing bad consequences.
Stronger versions of negative consequentialism will require active intervention to prevent bad and ameliorate existing harm.
Karl Popper, for example, claimed that "from the moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure.
When considering a theory of justice, negative consequentialists may use a statewide or global-reaching principle: the reduction of suffering (for the disadvantaged) is more valuable than increased pleasure (for the affluent or luxurious).
[34][39] Douglas W. Portmore has suggested that these and other problems of actualism and possibilism can be avoided by constraining what counts as a genuine alternative for the agent.
[41] One common tactic among consequentialists, particularly those committed to an altruistic (selfless) account of consequentialism, is to employ an ideal, neutral observer from which moral judgements can be made.
[citation needed] In practice, it is very difficult, and at times arguably impossible, to adopt the point of view of an ideal observer.
For this reason, some theorists have argued that consequentialist theories can only require agents to choose the best action in line with what they know about the situation.
[43] More recently, Peter Singer has argued that it is unreasonable that we do not give equal consideration to the interests of animals as to those of human beings when we choose the way we are to treat them.
Closely related is eudaimonic consequentialism, according to which a full, flourishing life, which may or may not be the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure, is the ultimate aim.
Some virtue ethicists hold that consequentialist theories totally disregard the development and importance of moral character.
Finally, following Foot's lead, one might adopt a sort of consequentialism that argues that virtuous activity ultimately produces the best consequences.
[clarification needed] The ultimate end is a concept in the moral philosophy of Max Weber, in which individuals act in a faithful, rather than rational, manner.
[...] There is an abysmal contrast between conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of ultimate ends — that is in religious terms, "the Christian does rightly and leaves the results with the Lord" — and conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of responsibility, in which case one has to give an account of the foreseeable results of one's action.G.
E. M. Anscombe objects to the consequentialism of Sidgwick on the grounds that the moral worth of an action is premised on the predictive capabilities of the individual, relieving them of the responsibility for the "badness" of an act should they "make out a case for not having foreseen" negative consequences.
The example asks whether or not it would be right to give false statement to an inquiring murderer in order to misdirect the individual away from the intended victim.
[51] Bernard Williams has argued that consequentialism is alienating because it requires moral agents to put too much distance between themselves and their own projects and commitments.
Williams argues that consequentialism requires moral agents to take a strictly impersonal view of all actions, since it is only the consequences, and not who produces them, that are said to matter.
He argues further that consequentialism fails to make sense of intuitions that it can matter whether or not someone is personally the author of a particular consequence.
[56] Some consequentialists—most notably Peter Railton—have attempted to develop a form of consequentialism that acknowledges and avoids the objections raised by Williams.
