Q.

2: Write notes on following in detail

 Consequentialist Theories
 Non-consequentialist Theories

Consequentialist Theory
Consequentialist ethics holds that the rightness/wrongness of actions resides in the consequences of
those actions. Therefore actions are not good or bad by themselves, but depending on their
consequences.

Consequentialism says that right or wrong depend on the consequences of an act, and that the more
good consequences are produced, the better the act.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a plain and simple definition of consequentialism:

Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is
the one with the best overall consequences.

Consequentialism is based on two principles:

 Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act
 The more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act

Different forms of consequentialism differ over what the good thing is that should be maximized.

Utilitarianism states that people should maximize human welfare or well-being (which they used to call
'utility' - hence the name).

Hedonism states that people should maximize human pleasure.

In practice people don't assess the ethical consequences of every single act (that's called 'act
consequentialism') because they don't have the time. Instead they use ethical rules that are derived
from considering the general consequences of particular types of acts. That is called 'rule
consequentialism'.

So, for example, according to rule consequentialism we consider lying to be wrong because we know
that in general lying produces bad consequences. Results-based ethics produces this important
conclusion for ethical thinking:

No type of act is inherently wrong - not even murder -

it depends on the result of the act

This far-fetched example may make things clearer:

Suppose that by killing X, an entirely innocent person, we can save the lives of 10 other innocent people

A consequentialist would say that killing X is justified because it would result in only 1 person dying,
rather than 10 people dying
A non-consequentialist would say it is inherently wrong to murder people and refuse to kill X, even
though not killing X leads to the death of 9 more people than killing X

Act consequentialism
Act consequentialism looks at every single moral choice anew. It teaches:

A particular action is morally good only if it produces more overall good than any alternative action.

Good points of act consequentialism

 A flexible system: Act consequentialism is flexible and can take account of any set of circumstances,
however exceptional.

Bad points of act consequentialism

Impractical for real life use: while it sounds attractive in theory, it’s a very difficult system to apply to
real life moral decisions because:

 Every moral decision is a completely separate case that must be fully evaluated
 Individuals must research the consequences of their acts before they can make an ethically sound
choice
 Doing such research is often impracticable, and too costly
 The time taken by such research leads to slow decision-making which may itself have bad
consequences, and the bad consequences of delay may outweigh the good consequences of making
a perfect decision
But where a very serious moral choice has to be made, or in unusual circumstances, individuals may well
think hard about the consequences of particular moral choices in this way

Bad for society

 Some people argue that if everyone adopted act consequentialism it would have bad consequences
for society in general
 This is because it would be difficult to predict the moral decisions that other people would make,
and this would lead to great uncertainty about how they would behave
 Some philosophers also think that it would lead to a collapse of mutual trust in society, as many
would fear that prejudice or bias towards family or other groups would more strongly influence
moral decisions than if people used general moral rules based on consequentialism

Rule consequentialism
Rule consequentialism bases moral rules on their consequences. This removes many of the problems of
act consequentialism.

Rule consequentialism teaches:

 Whether acts are good or bad depends on moral rules

 Moral rules are chosen solely on the basis of their consequences

So when an individual has a moral choice to make they can ask themselves if there's an appropriate rule
to apply and then apply it. The rules that should be adopted are the rules that would produce the best
results if they were adopted by most people.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Consequentialism

An action is morally right if and only if it does not violate the set of rules of behavior
whose general acceptance in the community would have the best consequences--that
is, at least as good as any rival set of rules or no rules at all.

Good points of rule consequentialism

 Practical and efficient: Rule consequentialism gets round the practical problems of act
consequentialism because the hard work has been done in deriving the rules; individuals don't
generally have to carry out difficult research before they can take action. And because individuals
can shortcut their moral decision-making they are much more likely to make decisions in a quick and
timely way

Bad points of rule consequentialism

 Less flexible: Because rule consequentialism uses general rules it doesn't always produce the best
result in individual cases However, those in favor of it argue that it produces more good results
considered over a long period than act consequentialism
Non-Consequential Theory
An umbrella term that generally describes many different ethical approaches: divine, duty and virtue
ethics. Our actions are based on a set of well-defined laws, principles, and concepts that we have
learned. We do not consider the consequences of our actions, instead we simply act out of the
understanding that what we are doing is right – period.

Also called Deontological theory. From the Greek: deon meaning duty, and logos meaning science.

Act- Nonconsequential Approach

This mode of belief states that there are not rules or absolute correct theories on correct ethics and or
morals. There are only individual acts, people and situations and we cannot make any type of general
rule or assumption.

All decisions are based on intuition regarding the particular situation or action. We do what “feels right”
or “sounds right.” We act according to our feels and “hunches.”

Problems with Act- Nonconsequential Approach

Lack of critical thinking – hunches, feelings and guesses suggest that we are not critically examining a
situation before me make a decision – instead we act on instinct and our instinct might be wrong. Not
everyone has the same instincts and in a community, if we are all doing what seems right or feels good,
our non-consequential action could easily harm another and also cause chaos!

Rule-nonconsequential Approach
Unlike act nonconsequential reasoning, those who follow this philosophy believe there are set, well
defined rules of behavior that should be followed in order to live morally.

Here, it is the rules and not the consequences that matter. By following clearly set moral rules, we will in
turn be moral individuals.

Rule Nonconsequential: Divine Ethics

We base all of our actions on divine law as found in different religions and set down in different divine
publications: Bible, Qur’an, Torah, and other spiritual doctrines. These are the “thou shall”, and “thou
shall nots” of ethics—as such, there can be no debate, no arguments, no bargaining as to results desired
or not.

Simple Example of Divine Ethics

Several laws set down in the Holy Books regarding our ethical behavior and actions in different ways. For
example: Thou shall not kill. No matter what, if I believe in divine ethics, I will agree not to kill. I do not
think about it, I simply accept and abide by the rule.

Problems with Divine Ethics All rules, including divine ones, tend to ignore contingent circumstances. For
example, if my life is threatened, I may defend myself and in doing so, kill another. At times, divine law
conflicts with secular law – if you belong to a spiritual and secular society, which law do you follow?
Which law should society follow? How can you make the determination? Example: the concept of
Marriage and same-sex unions.
Rule Nonconsequential duty ethics ((Immanuel Kant 1724-1804)

We act out of a sense of duty to the universal, to humanity, and to Autonomy. We make rules to guide
us in this duty and we are asked to follow them without question. Example, our military institutions
promote duty ethics in order to guide the actions of solders. In the Middle Ages, chivalry guided warriors
as to their duty towards the tribe/kingdom, life and love.

Kant’s Formula The need for good will –

Will is defined as human’s ability to abide by moral rules. Morality is established by logic reasoning, not
feelings or emotions: Moral truth must be logical. Moral truth must be universal (such as all triangles
have 3 sides – never is there a time that this is not true). Categorical Imperative – an act becomes
immoral if the rule that guides that act cannot be applied to all humans. Example – it’s ok to kill is
immoral because it cannot be applied as a universal rule – everyone should kill everyone else – besides
being impractical, it is not logical.

Problems with Duty Ethics

What happens when one rule of duty clashes with another rule of duty? Can there really be universals?
How? As a society, how can we assign duties and laws that everyone will agree with absolutely? Is this
even possible – likely not. My since of duty might clash with someone else's sense of duty – Again,
absolute rules tend to ignore contingent circumstances that may call for a different action.

Summing it all up!

Act-nonconsequential approach – there are no rules, only individuals and acts and we act based on our
instinct alone.

Rule-nonconsequential approach – There are set, well defined rules that lead to moral behavior – we do
not concern ourselves with consequences.

Rule-nonconsequential Divine Ethics – Rules defined to lead to spiritual or religious morality.

Rule-nonconsequential Kant’s Duty Ethics – Good will, logic and universal rules that offer a road map for
morality.