CONSEQUENTIALIST

THEORIES
Introduction
• In ethics, normative theories propose some principle or principles for
distinguishing right actions from wrong actions. These theories can, for
convenience, be divided into two kinds: consequentialist and non-
consequentialist.

• According to consequentialist theories, the moral rightness of an action

is determined solely by its results. If its consequences are good, then
the act is right; if they are bad, the act is wrong. Consequentialists
(moral theorists who adopt this approach) determine what is right by
weighing the ratio of good too bad that an action will produce. The right
act is the one that produces (or will probably produce) at least as great a
ratio of good to evil as any other course of action open to the agent.
• One question that arises here is, Consequences for whom?
Should one consider the consequences only for oneself? Or
the consequences for everyone affected? The two most
important consequentialist theories, egoism and
utilitarianism, are distinguished by their different answers to
this question. Egoism advocates individual self-interest as its
guiding principle. Utilitarianism holds that one must take
into account everyone affected by the action. But both
theories agree that rightness and wrongness are solely a
function of an action’s results.
• By contrast, non-consequentialist (or deontological) theories
contend that right and wrong are determined by more than the
likely consequences of an action.
• Non-consequentialists do not necessarily deny that consequences
are morally significant, but they believe that other factors are also
relevant to the moral assessment of an action.
• For example, a non-consequentialist would hold that for Kevin to
break his promise to Cindy is wrong not simply because it has bad
results (Cindy’s hurt feelings, Kevin’s damaged reputation, and so
on) but because of the inherent character of the act itself.
• Even if more good than bad were to come from Kevin’s breaking
the promise, a non-consequentialist might still view it as wrong.
What matters is the nature of the act in question, not just its
results. This idea will become clearer later in the chapter as we
examine some specific non-consequentialist principles and
theories.
Egoism
• In the late summer of 2000, a dismayed American public learned that
the Firestone tires on Ford Explorers, one of the country’s most popular
vehicles, were dangerously prone to split apart on the road, causing the
SUVs to roll over and crash. When officials began demanding a recall,
the controversy was reminiscent of an earlier one involving Firestone’s
“500” steel-belted radials, which a House subcommittee had implicated
in at least fifteen deaths.
• When Firestone announced that it was discontinuing the controversial
“500,” newspapers at the time interpreted this to mean that Firestone
would immediately remove the tires from the market. In fact, Firestone
intended only a “rolling phaseout” and continued to manufacture the
tire.
• When a Firestone spokesperson was later asked why the company had
not corrected the media’s misinterpretation of its intent, the
spokesperson said that Firestone’s policy was to ask for corrections only
when it was beneficial to the company to do so—in other words, only
when it was in the company’s self-interest.
• The view that equates morality with self-interest is referred to as
egoism. An egoist contends that an act is morally right if and only
if it best promotes an agent’s interests. (Here an “agent” can be a
single person or, as in the Firestone example, an organization.)
Egoists use personal advantage (both short term and long run) as
the standard for measuring an action’s rightness. If an action will
produce more good for the agent than any alternative action
would, then that action is the morally right one to perform.

• Moral philosophers distinguish between two kinds of egoism:

personal and impersonal. Personal egoists claim they should
pursue their own best interests, but they do not say what others
should do. Impersonal egoists claim that everyone should let self-
interest guide his or her conduct.
Misconceptions about Egoism
• Several misconceptions haunt both versions of egoism. One is that
egoists do only what they like, that they believe in “eat, drink, and be
merry.” Not so. Undergoing unpleasant, even painful experience meshes
with egoism, provided such temporary sacrifice is necessary for the
advancement of one’s long-term interests.

• Another misconception is that all egoists endorse hedonism, the view

that pleasure (or happiness) is the only thing that is good in itself, that it
is the ultimate good, the one thing in life worth pursuing for its own
sake. Although some egoists are hedonistic—as was the ancient Greek
philosopher Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.)—other egoists have a broader
view of what constitutes self-interest. They identify the good with
knowledge, power, or what some modern psychologists call “self-
actualization.” Egoists may, in fact, hold any theory of what is good.
• A final but very important misconception is that egoists cannot
act honestly, be gracious and helpful, or otherwise promote other
people’s interests. Egoism, however, requires us to do whatever
will best further our own interests, and doing this sometimes
requires us to advance the interests of others.
• In particular, egoism tells us to benefit others when we expect
that our doing so will be reciprocated or when the act will bring
us pleasure or in some way promote our own good.
• For example, egoism might discourage a shopkeeper from trying
to cheat customers because it is likely to hurt business in the long
run. Or egoism might recommend to the chair of the board that
she hire as a vice president her nephew, who is not the best
candidate for the job but of whom she is very fond. Hiring the
nephew might bring her more satisfaction than any other course
of action, even if the nephew doesn’t perform his job as well as
someone else might.
Psychological Egoism
• So, egoism does not preach that we should never assist others
but rather that we have no basic moral duty to do so. The only
moral obligation we have is to ourselves. Although you and I are
not required to act in the interests of others, we should if that is
the best way to promote our own self-interest. In short: Always
look out for “number one.”

• Proponents of the ethical theory of egoism generally attempt to

derive their basic moral principle from the alleged fact that
human beings are by nature selfish creatures.
• According to this doctrine, termed psychological egoism, people
are, as a matter of fact, so constructed that they must behave
selfishly. Psychological egoism asserts that all actions are selfishly
motivated and that truly unselfish actions are therefore
impossible.
• Even such apparently self-sacrificial acts as giving up one’s own
life to save the lives of one’s children or blowing the whistle on
one’s organization’s misdeeds at great personal expense are,
according to psychological egoism, done to satisfy the person’s
own self-interested desires. For example, the parent may seek to
perpetuate the family line or to avoid guilt, and the worker may
be after fame or revenge.
Problems with Egoism
• Although egoism as an ethical doctrine has always had its adherents, the
theory is open to very strong objections. It is safe to say that few, if any,
philosophers today would advocate it as either a personal or an
organizational morality. Consider these objections:

• Psychological egoism is not a sound theory. Of course, self-interest

motivates all of us to some extent, and we all know of situations in which
someone pretended to be acting selflessly or morally but was really
motivated only by self-interest. The theory of psychological egoism
contends, however, that self-interest is the only thing that ever motivates
anyone. Now this claim seems open to many counterexamples. Take the
actual case of a man who, while driving a company truck, spotted smoke
coming from inside a parked car and a child trying to escape from the
vehicle. The man quickly made a U-turn, drove up to the burning vehicle,
and found a little girl trapped in the backseat, restrained by a seat belt.
Flames raged in the front seat as heavy smoke billowed from the car.
Disregarding his own safety, the man entered the car and removed the child,
who authorities said otherwise would have died from the poisonous fumes
and the flames.
• Ethical egoism is not really a moral theory at all. Many critics of
egoism as an ethical standard contend that it misunderstands the
nature and point of morality. Morality serves to restrain our purely
self-interested desires so we can all live together. If our interests
never came into conflict—that is, if it were never advantageous for
one person to deceive or cheat another—then we would have no
need for morality. The moral standards of a society provide the basic
guidelines for cooperative social existence and allow us to resolve
conflicts by appeal to shared principles of justification.
• It is difficult to see how ethical egoism could perform this function.
In a society of egoists, people might publicly agree to follow certain
rules so their lives would run more smoothly. But it would be a very
unstable world, because people would not hesitate to break the
rules if they thought they could get away with it. Nor can egoism
provide a means for settling conflicts and disputes, because it simply
tells each party to do whatever is necessary to promote effectively
his or her interests. Many moral theorists maintain that moral
principles apply equally to the conduct of all persons and that their
application requires us to be objective and impartial.
• Ethical egoism ignores obvious wrongs. The most
common objection to egoism as an ethical doctrine is
that by reducing everything to the standard of best
long-term self-interest, egoism takes no stand against
such seemingly immoral acts as theft, murder, racial
and sexual discrimination, deliberately false
advertising, and wanton pollution. All such actions are
morally neutral until the test of self-interest is applied.
Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that we should always act to
produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone
affected by our actions. By “good,” utilitarians understand happiness or
pleasure. Thus, the greatest happiness of all constitutes the standard
that determines whether an action is right or wrong. Although the basic
theme of utilitarianism is present in the writings of many earlier
thinkers, Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–
1873) were the first to develop the theory explicitly and in detail.
• Both Bentham and Mill were philosophers with a strong interest in legal
and social reform. They used the utilitarian standard to evaluate and
criticize the social and political institutions of their day—for example,
the prison system and the disenfranchisement of women. As a result,
utilitarianism has long been associated with social improvement.
• Businesses seek to make a profit. They engage in accounting and
attempt to have their income exceed their costs. This is a rational
procedure, one we all understand, for it is a procedure we all use
in our own lives. For instance, a family has an income, and it sets
limits on what it can spend. The members of a family need a great
many different kinds of goods. People also want things that they
do not absolutely need. Typically, a family apportions its funds to
take care of immediate needs first and then decides how to
allocate the remainder, taking into account both present and
long-range needs and desires. A budget helps a family plan the
wise use of its money. Although it is difficult to weigh the
desirability of a music lesson as opposed to a movie, and to weigh
that against one’s desire for new clothes or a vacation, we know
that people make these comparisons and choices. We also know
that occasionally people forgo earning more money in order to
have more leisure time or more time to devote to members of
their family. Although we can put a price tag on many things that
we desire, we cannot calculate the value of all of them in terms of
money.
• This common practice of calculating what we want, balancing our
wishes with our resources, and comparing present versus long-
range desires forms the basis of the utilitarian approach to ethics.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that holds that an action is right
if it produces, or if it tends to produce, the greatest amount of
good for the greatest number of people affected by the action.
Otherwise the action is wrong.
• Utilitarianism does not force on us something foreign to our
ordinary rational way of acting. It systematizes and makes explicit
what its defenders believe most of us do in our moral thinking, as
well as in much of our other thinking. It is reasonable for rational
beings, who are able to foresee the consequences of their
actions, to choose those actions that produce more good than
those that produce less good, other things being equal.
• Businesses traditionally reduce good to money and calculate costs
and benefits in monetary terms. Because the aim of a business is
to make money, those actions that tend to help it make money
are considered good and those that tend to make it lose money
are considered bad. A rationally operated company tries to
maximize its good and minimize its bad so that when income and
costs are balanced out, there is a profit. The bottom line of the
ledger sheet, which shows a profit or a loss, is the final
accounting in which business is traditionally interested.
• This cost–benefit analysis is a form of utility calculation. People in
business theory use utility curves to plot the results of various
actions, choosing those that maximize whatever it is that they
wish to achieve. This utility approach is not foreign to most
people. It is widely used in many forms of general decision
making and can be applied to moral issues as well as to strictly
business issues.
• There is a significant difference, however, between utilitarianism
and a utility analysis as used by business. When a firm uses a
utility, or a cost–benefit analysis, it weighs the good and the bad
consequences of performing a certain action (usually in monetary
terms) as it relates to itself. A utilitarian analysis, as an ethical
analysis, weighs the good and bad results of an action on
everyone affected by it.
• According to utilitarianism, we should evaluate an action by
looking at its consequences, weighing the good effects against the
bad effects on all the people affected by it. If the good outweighs
the bad, it tends to be a good action; if the bad outweighs the
good, it tends to be a bad action.
ACT AND RULE UTILITARIANISM
• Two versions of utilitarianism are compatible with the utilitarian
principle just stated. They are known as act utilitarianism and rule
utilitarianism.
• Act utilitarianism holds that each individual action, in all its
concreteness and in all its detail, is what should be subjected to
the utilitarian test. When faced with the temptation to break a
contract, we are always concerned with a particular contract in a
particular set of circumstances. To determine the morality of the
action, we should calculate the effects of breaking this particular
contract. The effects will be, in part, similar to those of breaking
any contract, but they will be somewhat different. If we believe
that what is true of breaking contracts in general will not be true
in this case, we should investigate the effects.
• When faced with the temptation to break a contract, we may
know that the bad consequences will outweigh the good ones.
This is based on our knowledge of what the results of breaking
contracts are, and also on our knowledge that this case has no
special qualities such that the consequences might be different
from other cases. The act utilitarian knows that the vast majority
of past cases of breaking contracts have resulted in more bad
than good. Hence, we arrive at a rule of thumb about the
morality of breaking contracts. The rule of thumb, however, is a
generalization about past instances, and some particular future
instance may prove an exception to the rule. In that particular
case, the act utilitarian claims, breaking the contract is morally
permissible.
• Those who defend rule utilitarianism object to the act utilitarian
approach. Rule utilitarians hold that utility applies appropriately
to classes of actions rather than to given individual actions. Thus,
by looking at the general consequences of breaking contracts in
the past, we can determine that breaking contracts is immoral. It
is immoral because the bad consequences outweigh the good
consequences. We therefore arrive at a rule stating that it is
morally wrong to violate contracts. By a similar analysis, a rule
utilitarian determines that people should not lie, steal, or murder.
Each of these injunctions is the result of having observed the
consequences of those acts as performed in the past, together
with an assumption that the consequences in the future will be
similar.
Critical Inquiries of Utilitarianism
• 1. Is utilitarianism really workable? Utilitarianism instructs us to
maximize happiness, but in difficult cases we may be very uncertain
about the likely results of the alternative courses of action open to us.
Furthermore, comparing your level of happiness or unhappiness with
that of someone else is at best tricky, at worst impossible—and when
many people are involved, the matter may get hopelessly complex. Even
if we assume that it is possible to make comparisons and to identify the
various possible results of each course of action that a person might
take (and to determine the likelihood of each result), is it realistic to
expect people to take the time to make those calculations and, if they
do, to make them accurately? Some critics of act utilitarianism have
contended that teaching people to follow the basic utilitarian principle
would not, in fact, promote happiness because of the difficulties in
applying utilitarianism accurately.
• 2. Are some actions wrong, even if they produce good? Like
egoism, utilitarianism focuses on the results of an action, not on
the character of the action itself. For utilitarians, no action is in
itself objectionable. It is objectionable only when it results in less
happiness than could otherwise have been brought about. Critics
of utilitarianism, by contrast, contend that some actions can be
immoral and thus things we must not do, even if doing them
would maximize happiness.
• 3. Is utilitarianism unjust? Utilitarianism concerns itself with the
sum total of happiness produced, not with how that happiness is
distributed. If policy X brings two units of happiness to each of
five people and policy Y brings nine units of happiness to one
person, one unit each to two others, and none to the remaining
two, then Y is to be preferred (eleven units of happiness versus
ten), even though it distributes that happiness very unequally.