Consequentialism in ethical philosophy

Ethics - Consequentialism

CONSEQUENTIALISM

Consequentialist Ethical Principles:

The consequentialist ethical approach determines the relative morality or immorality of human conduct strictly in relation to the consequences of that conduct.

Like other philosophical systems, consequentialism incorporates variations in the specific definitions and distinctions or classes of consequences that matter the most:

utilitarianism emphasizes consequences that benefit the greatest number, even at the expense of some; hedonism emphasizes the maximization of pleasure; and aestheticism emphasizes beauty. Consequentialism is contrary to other ethical systems that determine the relative morality or immorality of human conduct strictly on principle and without regard for different types of effects of conduct, such as in relation to their underlying motive (virtue ethics), or their adherence to established social rules or laws (Kantian

Deontology).

The consequentialist would argue that even contrary ethical systems are, at their root, necessarily consequentialist at their fundamental core. Consider that the underlying purpose sought to be achieved by virtue ethics and Kantianism both can be said to derive their moral character from consequentialism principles, varying more in their specific focus than in overall principle. The only practical relevance of motives and the only value of rules, in the first place, is (presumably) that certain motives and rules correspond to positive results (Beauchamp, Bowie, & Arnold, 2009).

Virtuous motives are those that are consistent with beneficence in their likely results. Deontological ethics (in various different forms) is (presumably) predicated on the assumption that adherence to rules is, on average, so much more likely to result in positive consequences than in negative consequences, that it justifies a blanket proposition that established social rules and laws must always be obeyed. In that view, adherence to rules is necessarily the highest moral conduct irrespective of the fact that a small minority of cases could qualify as valid exceptions to the rule.

Consequentialism in Practice:

Generally, consequentialism relates to the approximate likelihood of specific consequences rather than to ultimate consequences that defy the odds at their time of occurrence. Where negative consequences result from conduct that, at the time of occurrence, was more likely to result in positive consequences, that conduct is not defined as unethical. The same holds true in reverse, such as in connection with positive consequences that result from conduct that, at the time of occurrence, was more likely to result in negative consequences.

Likewise, as a moral theory, consequentialist definition of behavior also varies in relation to subjective perception. Therefore, an individual who is perfectly capable of understanding the likely negative consequences of his conduct but chooses to ignore that likelihood may be subject to much harsher consequentialist moral criticism than an individual who is intellectually incapable of understanding or otherwise genuinely fails to comprehend the likely consequences of his conduct (Beauchamp, Bowie, & Arnold, 2009).

Because consequentialism defines ethics in terms of the practical consequences of choices and actions, the same specific choice or act might represent highly moral or highly immoral conduct in circumstances where that act results in substantially different or even diametrically opposite) consequences (Beauchamp, Bowie, & Arnold, 2009).

For example, consider the act of giving shelter to an individual for the purposes of eluding capture by law enforcement authorities. Consequentialism would define as perfectly ethical the choice to assist black slaves escape Southern states via the Underground Railroad during American slavery, just as it would in the case of sheltering

German Jews against extermination even in overt violation of Nazi law prior to the end of World War II.

For the same reason, consequentialism would require sheltering an individual who escaped from lawful penal custody after being convicted of a criminal charge for which, in fact, the individual was not actually guilty of having committed, precisely because that individual should never have been convicted. Conversely, if the same wrongfully convicted individual expressed that he hoped to remain free with the future intention of murdering the members of the jury who wrongfully convicted him in revenge, consequentialism would require turning him over to the authorities to prevent the negative consequences of his remaining free from occurring. Criticism of Consequentialism:

The deontological criticism of consequentialism would suggest that the very fact that two identical acts can be highly ethical or highly unethical in different circumstances renders consequentialism purely subjective and dependent on opinion instead of objective principles. In that view, the deontological ethical approach may produce unintended negative results on occasion, but at least deontological ethics are predictable and consistent; furthermore, deontological values lead to the better choice of conduct often enough to justify any specific instances where practical injustices could result from adherence to rules.

Adhering to rules is the surest way of ensuring ethical human conduct notwithstanding that isolated societies may establish rules that could be defined objectively as unethical. One of the best examples of the impracticality of consequentialism is the general law of false arrest in most American states. A citizen arrested unlawfully by a duly authorized law enforcement officer may not flee from or legally resist that arrest with physical force, despite being entirely innocent of any criminal charges justifying that arrest.

Consequentialism would allow the innocent individual to resist to flee, because the consequences of arrest and penal confinement in that circumstance would be unjust.

Deontology recognizes the importance of requiring respect for the authority of authorized agents of the state, even in proceeding error, and would require the individual wrongfully arrested to submit to the arrest and pursue legally recognized recourses after the fact.

Consequentialist Response:

The consequentialist would respond that ethical analysis would simply recognize and incorporate the potential consequences of allowing citizens to exercise independent belief in determining the validity or invalidity of a rule (or, in the specific example, the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an arrest). Since the consequences of permitting flight from or overt resistance to authority in any circumstance would undermine the process of administering law in society and ensuring maximum public safety, the consequences of the doctrine allowing resistance to unlawful arrest are more negative than the corresponding consequences of requiring submission to unjust arrest in any particular case.

Consequentialism is simply better equipped to address the many circumstances in which the specific consequences of violating a rule are decidedly more negative than the consequence of adhering to rules blindly in all cases. In fact, it is deontology rather than consequentialism that produces absurd results: Kant, for example, argued that the general ethical principle that truth is always preferable to deception would require a truthful response to a murderer who demanded to know the whereabouts of his intended victim.