The bad social consequences in the idea of the principles of utility or consequentialism

The Consequences of Accepting Consequentialism Katy Baker on the demands of consequentialist theories of morality.

The bad social consequences in the idea of the principles of utility or consequentialism

Jeremy Benthambest known for his advocacy of utilitarianism Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.

The Consequences of Accepting Consequentialism | Issue | Philosophy Now

On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think Historically, hedonistic utilitarianism is the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory.

This form of utilitarianism holds that what matters is the aggregate happiness; the happiness of everyone and not the happiness of any particular person.

The bad social consequences in the idea of the principles of utility or consequentialism

John Stuart Millin his exposition of hedonistic utilitarianism, proposed a hierarchy of pleasures, meaning that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure is more highly valued than the pursuit of other pleasures. Other contemporary forms of utilitarianism mirror the forms of consequentialism outlined below.

Ethical egoism 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.

Thus, egoism will prescribe actions that may be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral to the welfare of others. Some, like Henry Sidgwickargue that a certain degree of egoism promotes the general welfare of society for two reasons: Altruism ethics Ethical altruism can be seen as a consequentialist ethic which prescribes that an individual take actions that have the best consequences for everyone except for himself.

Rule utilitarianism In general, consequentialist theories focus on actions. However, this need not be the case. Rule consequentialism is a theory that is sometimes seen as an attempt to reconcile deontology and consequentialism—and in some cases, this is stated as a criticism of rule consequentialism.

However, rule consequentialism chooses rules based on the consequences that the selection of those rules has. Rule consequentialism exists in the forms of rule utilitarianism and rule egoism.

Various theorists are split as to whether the rules are the only determinant of moral behavior or not. For example, Robert Nozick holds that a certain set of minimal rules, which he calls "side-constraints", are necessary to ensure appropriate actions.

One of the most common objections to rule-consequentialism is that it is incoherent, because it is based on the consequentialist principle that what we should be concerned with is maximizing the good, but then it tells us not to act to maximize the good, but to follow rules even in cases where we know that breaking the rule could produce better results.

Brad Hooker avoided this objection by not basing his form of rule-consequentialism on the ideal of maximizing the good. The best argument for rule-consequentialism is that it does a better job than its rivals of matching and tying together our moral convictions, as well as offering us help with our moral disagreements and uncertainties.

In practice, this equates to adhering to rule consequentialism when one can only reason on an intuitive level, and to act consequentialism when in a position to stand back and reason on a more critical level. This version gives relevance to the motive of an act and links it to its consequences.

An act can therefore not be wrong if the decision to act was based on a right motive. A possible inference is, that one can not be blamed for mistaken judgments if the motivation was to do good.

Ancient civilizations to the end of the 19th century

However, negative utilitarianism lays out a consequentialist theory that focuses solely on minimizing bad consequences.Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.

Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.

Right, my point was that the advice should be not, “become hedge fund manager” or “become a doctor”, but rather, “become whatever it is that you have a good chance of being great at, then donate your money to whatever cause you want to support”.

Nov 18,  · Any form of consequentialism that sees the good and bad as forces to be reckoned with, or feels that intentions gone awry are excusable on account of honesty, to mention some most prominent bad examples, is not and cannot be dealing with the factual nature of Rationally Speaking.

Such thinking would be action that has bad consequences. If that is right, then consequentialism itself must be wrong because consequentialism is at root the idea that we ought to bring about good consequences.

Utility and Rights. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, Geach, Peter. “Good and Evil.”. the idea that the best act is one permitted by a set of rules whose internalization by most of the population would have better consequences than the internalization of any other set.

act-consequentialism. Introduction to Moral Theories and Principles that inform ethical decision making in healthcare Introduction If a clinical ethics committee (CEC) is to provide support on ethical issues relating to.

Justice and Bad Luck (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)