The Consequences of Accepting Consequentialism

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

The Consequences of Accepting Consequentialism

Post by Philosophy Now »

Katy Baker on the demands of consequentialist theories of morality.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Th ... uentialism
alqpr
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 6:40 pm

Re: The Consequences of Accepting Consequentialism

Post by alqpr »

"Katy Baker studied Philosophy at the University of Kent and is now part of the Philosophy Now team." So how am I supposed to respond to this article? As a beginning undergrad essay, or as evidence of the current level of depth in academic philosophical discourse (as the initiates would have it delivered to the general public)? It really *does* matter you know!
MGL
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:58 pm

Re: The Consequences of Accepting Consequentialism

Post by MGL »

Consequentialism does not necessarily entail the obligation to do more than can be reasonably expected. When using consequentialism to determine obligations of an agent we are not just calculating the consequences of an action of an agent. To turn an outcome into an obligation, we have to also accommodate the consequence of imposing a deterrent or restraint on the behaviour to be discouraged. If the aim is only to maximise aggregate utility, then only those outcomes that are a net benefit after a deterrent is applied can be considered obligations. If someone is unwilling to kill one person to save the lives of many other because of a need to retain their integrity, then they may be unlikely to be encouraged to kill by the fear of punishment if they don’t. Furthermore, it is always open to a consequentialist to apply further or alternative conditions to qualify an action as an obligation. Actions that could be disqualified as obligations could include:

a) Any action that requires the agent to sacrifice its vital interests and values (a minimum level of utility expected from life - including the utility derived from one's integrity).

b) Any action that requires sacrificing assets they acquired fairly through their own effort which they would not otherwise bother to acquire if they were obliged to relinquish them for the greater good.
Skywalker
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:48 pm

Re: The Consequences of Accepting Consequentialism

Post by Skywalker »

HELLO,
IM PART OF SMALL GROUP WITH THE INTENTION TO END NEEDLESS SUFFERING BY ASSISTING IN CREATING
BETTER LIVES THROUGH MUTUAL WELL BEING. WE'VE BEEN HITTING THE CONCEPT OF MORALITY HARD FOR A FEW
DAYS NOW AND THE ABOVE ARTICLE HAS BECOME A HOT TOPIC.
ANYWAY, it's clear the author is strongly against a society of Consequentialism, however does not offer any
alternative. Perhaps I am to infer the challenges faced by the characters in the stories are posed to
those of modernity. Of course i realize the article is dated, nevertheless does nothing for the agitation. The author
is quick to condemn the Consequentialist for determination of the greater good and narrowly focuses on the individuals
personal well being whereby becoming somehow alienated for saving the lives of 19 people and potentially their families and friends
that could easily number in the hundreds. Their is a much deeper moral issue at hand here that the author skates around by
the compassion for the seeming victim in all this. Obviously this man will be horrified with regret and remorse for killing the one,
this would be true regardless. What is annoying for me is the author offers nothing except to say whatever the Consequentialist ideals
are as a result are somehow wrong. Moreover, the situation dictates that no matter a persons personal views, personal morality, ideals,
or beliefs, somebody or several somebody's are about to be killed. Weather or not he pulls the trigger, this man has been handed the lives of
20 people, like it or not. He can choose only to be responsible for 1 life or that of 20. To focus on his personal integrity and it being
compromised is at odds for this example and seriously devalues the lives of those at stake and dodges the glaring moral implications of
this mans decision. The author seems to disagree with the 1 life to save 19 because of this poor guys personal beliefs and the trauma he is
sure to endure but stops way short of saying hes better off doing nothing and letting the sweaty guy kill them all because at least his hands will
be clean. She also doesn't address that instead of one life, now he is responsible for countless others. It is ridiculous. A bad argument, and
a poor stance.
In addition, the drowning boy. The author says that nothing bad can happen except some mud and water and the man is responsible for saving the kid. That simply is not true. The story is written is such a way that it has to be a guarantee that this man saves the kid, which is also
invalid. As if to say, once the man turns and heads for the kid, "its in the bag". Impossible to say, and in no way would this man be responsible
for the kid drowning. Its difficult not to see how the stories are tailored to support a specific view. Again, the issue of ethics and morality
overshadows by far anything else. Life is never that simple. What of the legality issues of this man retrieving the boy? Could he not be
perceived as attempting to kidnap this kid. These days, I do not doubt it. Somebody chocking at a restaurant you must ask them if they
want your help or you may face legal action. If we're talking real world issues with real world implications, then we have to; keep it real.
If you get a sec. please set me straight. Cut me up, im ready.
Post Reply