Alan Apthorp, R8, HSDC Consequentialism CON

Consequentialism CON

"My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue
with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday." - GK Chesterton

Impact of linking consequentialism to progress: Consequentialism is basically utilitarianism, or the

greatest good for the greatest number (even at the expense of a smaller nember). Read #6, and ask
if killing the 6th man would be good progress, because that's the progress you get with
consequentialism.

Consequentialism Bad
1. Consequentialism is useless in practice
2. Consequentialism says we shouldn't use our money for personal satisfaction, but for the "greater
good"
3. Consequentialism says that morality is determined by results

Consequentialism = Utilitarianism, which is bad

1. Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy has no separate entry for consequentialism and
utilitarianism
2. Consequentialism leads to utilitarianism
3. Consequentialism IS utilitarianism, which only values the end result
4. Consequentialism is anything similar to utilitarianism; but no real agreement on it (so it's very
vague)
5. If it isn't talking about acts judged by their ends, it's not consequentialism.
6. Impact - Example of utilitarianism violating standard morality
Alan Apthorp, R8, HSDC Consequentialism CON

Consequentialism is bad

1. Consequentialism is useless in practice

Lars Bergström, PhD from Stockholm University, Accociate Professor at Stockholm University from
1967 to 1973. He has been Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Uppsala from
1974 to 1987, and at Stockholm University from 1987 to 2001.; "Reflections on Consequentialism",
1996, http://www.philosophy.su.se/texter/consequentialism.htm
(iv) Consequentialism is useless in practice. The point just mentioned - namely that we cannot have justified
beliefs about the long-term consequences of alternative actions - also means that consequentialism
cannot be applied in practice. We can never know that a given action is right or ought to be done
according to the consequentialist principle. In some fairly extreme cases, we may have reason to believe that a given action is
wrong, because it has foreseeable consequences which are so terrible that they are unlikely to be outweighed by unforeseeable good consequences or
by the bad consequences of available alternatives. But this is not much help in ordinary life, where such terrible consequences are comparatively rare.

2. Consequentialism says we shouldn't use our money for personal satisfaction, but for the
"greater good"
Lars Bergström, PhD from Stockholm University, Accociate Professor at Stockholm University from
1967 to 1973. He has been Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Uppsala from
1974 to 1987, and at Stockholm University from 1987 to 2001.; "Reflections on Consequentialism",
1996, http://www.philosophy.su.se/texter/consequentialism.htm
(ii) Consequentialism is too demanding. Since consequentialism requires that we always act so as to bring about
the best possible outcome, we can be fairly sure that we never do what is right according to
consequentialism. For example, instead of going to the cinema, I could have used the money to save
the life of starving people in some poor country. Now, it may not be unreasonable [is reasonable] to hold
that most or all of my actions are morally wrong. But it less reasonable to say that in all probability my actions would still be
wrong, even if I led a much better life in consequentialist terms. However, this seems true, given consequentialism. For according to
consequentialism, everything except the very best is morally wrong. This seems absurd.

3. Consequentialism says that morality is determined by results

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on
consequences. This general approach can be applied at different levels to different normative properties of different kinds of things, but the
most prominent example is consequentialism about the moral rightness of acts, which holds that
whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related
to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind.
Impact: Lying is okay, as long as it's net beneficial. Abortion, which benefits the mother, is
justified. Genocide is okay if it's better for society.
Alan Apthorp, R8, HSDC Consequentialism CON

Consequentialism is utilitarian

1. Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy has no separate entry for consequentialism and

utilitarianism
Lars Bergström, PhD from Stockholm University, Accociate Professor at Stockholm University from
1967 to 1973. He has been Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Uppsala from
1974 to 1987, and at Stockholm University from 1987 to 2001.; "Reflections on Consequentialism",
1996, http://www.philosophy.su.se/texter/consequentialism.htm [emphasis added]
Consequentialism, or utilitarianism (in a broad sense), can be interpreted in many different ways.
In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, there is no separate entry for "consequentialism";
the reader is referred to "utilitarianism", and this is in turn explained as "the moral theory that an
action is morally right if and only if it produces at least as much good (utility) for all people
affected by the action as any alternative action the person could do instead". This is a sufficient starting point
for my purposes in this paper. It indicates, for example, that the kind of theory I have in mind is "act consequentialism", rather than "rule
consequentialism".

2. Consequentialism leads to utilitarianism

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The paradigm case of consequentialism is utilitarianism, whose classic proponents were Jeremy Bentham (1789), John
Stuart Mill (1861), and Henry Sidgwick (1907). (For predecessors, see Schneewind 1990.) Classic utilitarians held hedonistic act
consequentialism. Act consequentialism is the claim that an act is morally right if and only if that
act maximizes the good, that is, if and only if the total amount of good for all minus the total
amount of bad for all is greater than this net amount for any incompatible act available to the agent
on that occasion. (Cf. Moore 1912, chs. 1-2.) Hedonism then claims that pleasure is the only
intrinsic good and that pain is the only intrinsic bad. Together these claims imply that an act is
morally right if and only if that act causes "the greatest happiness for the greatest number," as the
common slogan says.

3. Consequentialism IS utilitarianism, which only values the end result

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Classic utilitarianism is consequentialist as opposed to deontological because of what it denies. It
denies that moral rightness depends directly on anything other than consequences, such as whether
the agent promised in the past to do the act now. Of course, the fact that the agent promised to do the act might indirectly
affect the act's consequences if breaking the promise will make other people unhappy. Nonetheless, according to classic
utilitarianism, what makes it morally wrong to break the promise is its effects on those other people
rather than the fact that the agent promised in the past.

4. Consequentialism is anything similar to utilitarianism; but no real agreement on it (so it's

very vague)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
This array of alternatives raises the question of which moral theories count as consequentialist (as opposed to deontological), and why. In actual
usage, the term ’consequentialism‘ seems to be used as a family resemblance term to refer to any
descendant of classic utilitarianism that remains close enough to its ancestor in the important
respects. Of course, different philosophers see different respects as the important ones. Hence, there
is no agreement on which theories count as consequentialist under this definition.
Impact: Some say consequentialism is anything like ulititarianism, but there's really no
agreement over what consequentialism truly is. This makes it vague, and makes it so the judge
doesn't know exactly what mindset they're getting with an affirmative ballot.
Alan Apthorp, R8, HSDC Consequentialism CON

5. If it isn't talking about acts judged by their ends, it's not consequentialism.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
To resolve this vagueness, we need to determine which of the various claims of classic utilitarianism are essential to consequentialism. One
claim seems clearly necessary. Any consequentialist theory must accept the claim that I labeled
‘consequentialism’, namely, that certain normative properties depend only on consequences. If that
claim is dropped, the theory ceases to be consequentialist.

6. Impact - Example of utilitarianism violating standard morality

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Another problem for utilitarianism is that it seems to overlook justice and rights. One common illustration is called
Transplant. Imagine that each of five patients in a hospital will die without an organ transplant. The
patient in Room 1 needs a heart, the patient in Room 2 needs a liver, the patient in Room 3 needs a
kidney, and so on. The person in Room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests. Luckily (for them, not
for him!), his tissue is compatible with the other five patients, and a specialist is available to
transplant his organs into the other five. This operation would save their lives, while killing the
"donor". There is no other way to save any of the other five patients (Foot 1966, Thomson 1976; compare related cases in Carritt 1947 and
McCloskey 1965).
Impact. Aff use of consequentialism would say kill the healthy 6th patient to save the other 5,
thus giving the greatest "good" for the greatest number