Arguments Against Consequentialism
Consequentialism is the doctrine which states that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.
WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST CONSEQUENTIALISM?
1. FUTURE CONSEQUENCES ARE DIFFICULT TO PREDICT
In almost every case, the best we can do is predict the probability of certain consequences following an act, and since my behaviour is based on my assessment of the consequences, should the rightness or wrongness of an act be judged on what I thought would happen or what happened?
2. MEASURING AND COMPARING THE ‘GOODNESS’ OF CONSEQUENCES IS VERY DIFFICULT
- People disagree about what should be considered when calculating positive outcomes: happiness, pleasure, fulfilment of desire, or something else.
- Measuring and comparing the ‘goodness' of those consequences is difficult.
- How do you measure happiness, for example?
- What is the difference between a large amount of happiness that lasts for a few minutes and a gentle satisfaction that lasts for years?
- What criteria do you use to evaluate any ‘subjective' quality?
- Choosing different periods may have different outcomes. For example, using cheap energy may produce good short-term economic results, but it may have negative long-term climate consequences.
3. IT IS EASY TO BIAS IN FAVOUR OF PARTICULAR GROUPS
- Choosing different groups of people could result in different outcomes. An act that benefits group X may also benefit group Y or society as a whole, so people's ethical decisions are likely to differ depending on which group they use in their moral calculations.
- The most common solution to this problem is to consider the implications for a large group, such as "society as a whole."
- Alternatively, ethicists can try to see things through the eyes of an "ideal" observer who is well-informed and completely objective.
4. IT IGNORES THINGS WE REGARD AS ETHICALLY RELEVANT
- Results-based ethics is only concerned with the consequences of an action; the intentions of the person who acts are unimportant.
- As a result, a good act performed by someone who intended to harm is as good as one performed by someone who intended to do well.
- The person performing the act's previous actions is irrelevant.
- The character of the person who performs the act is unimportant.
- The fairness of the consequences has no direct bearing on the outcome.
- And these are issues that many people believe are relevant to ethical decisions.
- However, it could be argued in support of consequentialism that many of the factors listed above do influence the good or bad consequences of an act, particularly when formulating ethical rules, and thus they are incorporated into consequentialist ethical thinking by the back door, rather than directly.
5. WE CAN NOT PREDICT EVERY OUTCOME OF AN EVENT
- The best action, according to simple forms of consequentialism, is the one that produces the greatest total amount of happiness.
- This ignores how happiness is distributed, and thus appears to endorse acts that make the majority of people happy while making a few people very unhappy, or that make a few people ecstatically happy while leaving the majority at best neutral.
- It also diminishes the value of individuals and their interests and projects, unless they are in line with the group's interests.
6. IT CAN BE INCONSISTENT WITH HUMAN RIGHTS
Consider the following scenario:
1. An organ transplant is required for a billionaire. If he is given the next suitable organ, he says he will fund 1000 heart replacements per year for the next ten years. Giving him the next available organ means that Mr X, who was at the top of the list, will die, but it also means that thousands of people will be overjoyed with their new hearts.
2. Consequentialism could be used to argue that Mr. X's human rights (and the happiness of his and his family) should be ignored to increase overall human well-being.