CONSISTENCY | GEETC REPORT | BSA 2-1 Handout

Bautista, Hernandez, Herradura, Mane, Manguiat, Terrenal, Valdellon, Ysorio

OBJECTIVES

At the end of the discussion, we are expected to:

1. Understand the concept of consistency and its four basic principles.
2. Learn about consistency as a tool in moral reasoning, and
3. Realize the role of consistency in forming our moral judgements.

CONSISTENCY IN BELIEFS
LOGICALITY

HOW CAN WE BE CONSISTENT IN OUR BELIEFS?

LOGICALITY is a must or a requirement. Meaning since we are rational beings, we should be

rational in our moral beliefs.

But how do we violate consistency or how do we drive into inconsistency?

1. By accepting incompatible beliefs
2. By accepting beliefs without accepting its logical consequence

CONSISTENCY DOESN’T GUARANTEE TRUTH BUT, COULD POINT US TOWARD THE

TRUTH.
It doesn’t mean that when you are consistent in your beliefs, it is the truth or it is the right thing to
do. But it could point us toward the truth and leads us towards the truth.

EXAMPLE:
Ima Relativist: On the first part he said that no duties bind universally but on the last part he said
everyone is ought to respect the values of other.

So there is contradiction between his beliefs because respecting the values of others constitute
a universal duty.

According to consistency principles, it is forbidden to be inconsistent but didn’t specifically

tell us what the right thing to do is or what to believe in.

OTHER EXAMPLE

A certain middle class Filipino citizen believes and says that the ayuda is for all of the Filipino
people. When it came to distribution, he then said the wealthy should not receive the same
because they are capable.

This clearly shows that this middle class citizen is not ready for the consequences of his beliefs
and thus, he is inconsistent.
CONSISTENCY IN WILL
ENDS-MEANS CONSISTENCY
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

Ends–means consistency is the requirement that we keep our means in harmony with our ends.
I violate this if I (a) have an end, (b) believe that to fulfil this end I need to carry out certain
means, and (c) don’t carry out the means.
Ends-means inconsistency is common because as human being we tend to do what is easy or
brings immediate satisfaction, instead of what is needed to fulfil our deeper goals.

Conscientiousness requires us to keep our actions, resolutions, and desires in harmony

with our moral beliefs. We violate this if our moral beliefs clash with how we live and want
others to live.

“Avoid inconsistencies between your moral judgments and how you live.”
Do not combine these two:
• I believe that everyone ought to follow the safety protocols.
• I do not act to follow the safety protocols.
You will notice that I said two statements that are contradicting to each other. If we combine these
(as we often do), then our moral belief clashes with how we live and we will be having a hard time
to make decisions in life. Consistency requires that we change one or the other.
Yes, it is satisfying to see harmony between our beliefs and actions because inconsistency leads
to confusion and the frustration of our desires. Moreover, consistency is often useful in attacking
flawed moral principles. But not all the time it must be followed and done because there are
instances that when we are consistent our principles still become flawed and there are instances
that when we are inconsistent our beliefs are in harmony with our actions.

TAKING ON RACIST ARGUMENTS

Consistency is useful in attacking flawed moral principles. But when is one’s moral principle
considered flawed?
Envision an argument with a racist, let's call him Conald Grump, who strongly believes that “Black
ought to be treated poorly, because they’re inferior.”
● To respond, it is suggested to follow these 3 steps.

1. First, we formulate the argument.

Conald’s conclusion is about how all blacks ought to be treated. Therefore, his premise needs to
say that “all blacks are inferior” and another saying, “all inferior people ought to be treated poorly.”
1st premise: 2nd premise: Conclusion:

All blacks are inferior. All who are inferior ought to All blacks ought to be
be treated poorly. treated poorly.

To be clearer, Conald needs to define “inferior” and for him Inferior = “of IQ less than 80”. His
argument now goes “all who have an IQ of less than 80 ought to be treated poorly.”

1st premise: 2nd premise: Conclusion:

All blacks have an Iq of less All who have an IQ of less All blacks ought to be
than 80. than 80 ought to be treated treated poorly.
poorly.

2. Criticize the facts.

Because the moment inferior is defined, the division of inferior and non-inferior goes beyond race.
For it is a fact that every race has some members with an IQ of less than 80. --making the first
premise FALSE.

3. Seeing if he applies his moral premise consistently.

For Conald to be consistent, he must believe that whites with low IQ should also be treated poorly.
Not only that, but he also has to be willing to do this himself and has the heart of desire that wishes
others to do the same.
As a racist, these consequences will be rejected by Conald and therefore he will become
inconsistent.
His racist arguments were destroyed because the level of IQ cannot separate all races and the
fact that no other criteria can.
To be consistent, Conald must either give up his principle or accept its consequences. Suppose
he let go of his inferiority argument, but still insist on “All black ought to be treated poorly, just
because of their skin color.”
Again, to be consistent, Conald must desire that if he and his family were black, then they should
be treated poorly as well.
Principles like Conald’s that promotes racist thinking can turn into behaviors and attitudes - and
these attitudes play an important role in shaping our social reality.

Since the COVID-19 Outbreak, Asians and people of Asian descent suffered the most from
discrimination and the spread of the virus became an efficient way for trying to justify racism and
xenophobia leading to hate crimes and violence.
We must keep in mind that we as people having these principles that we hold on to strongly are
not just useful for arguments or thoughts that stay in our minds for it reflects our behaviors,
attitudes, and how we treat the people around us.

IMPARTIALITY
-Requirement that we make similar evaluations about similar actions, regardless of the individuals
involved (Gensler, 2011)
-based objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias (Institute and Faculty of Actuaries)

-If we perceive that the action of one is right, then we judge that the same action done by another
person in the same situation is also right.

-Violated if an individual makes different evaluations on exactly similar or relevantly similar

actions.

Exactly Similar
-have all the same properties in common
-There are no exactly similar actions, but we can imagine exactly similar actions

Impartiality vs. The Golden Rule

Impartiality is about making similar evaluations on similar actions.
The golden rule deals with actions and desires.

Relevantly Similar
A little background first: about 3 weeks ago, our LGU revealed that 122 residents illegally received
a doubled amount of “ayuda” taking almost half a million of the city budgets. If you have 2 houses
sitting in 2 different barangays, you can illegally register your family twice but what they didn’t
know is that the city’s database can detect duplicated names. Those residents will face legal
charges for their misconduct.

But here’s the situation: You know me, I’m strongly against corruption. I hate politicians who steals
money from the public funds to the point that if there’s no trustworthy candidate for a government
position, I would rather leave my voting slip blank than vote for someone who had corruption
history. However, I’m just SO financially challenged these days that I can use twice the amount
of our ayuda so I doubled my registration for the financial aid. Technically, I am stealing from the
public funds. In this situation, I’m violating impartiality because I’m inconsistent with my beliefs in
relevantly similar cases. If it’s wrong for politicians to misappropriate public funds, it should also
be wrong if I do it. So, consistency, without telling me what to believe, helped me form my beliefs.
With consistency, you can build your ethical whole belief system without moral standards telling
you that you should do this and that. Again, impartiality as a type of consistency requires that we
make similar evaluations about actions that we take to be exactly or relevantly similar.
Questions about Impartiality

1. Do we violate impartiality if we say, “It’s all right for you to drive but wrong for your
brother to drive?”

No, because we must consider the differences between the cases wherein, I may have a driver’s
license while my brother may not have one yet.

2. Does impartiality require that we treat everyone the same?

No. If you think a situation needs more of your help then give it. You don’t need to ask yourself
about your consistency, just go help them.

3. Does impartiality require that we love everyone equally?

No. According to Gensler, it would ruin friendship and families. Supposedly one parent loves her
child more than strangers, we think and perceive that it is all right for other parents to do the same
action. The example didn’t implicate that we must love everyone equally, but it is still impartiality.

4. Does impartiality require that we always act the same way in the same kind of situation?

No. According to the book, life would be very boring if we had to do this. What if say you had Coke
one time, and then later in a similar situation have a Pepsi. Are you violating impartiality? No.
These actions are neutral (there is no right or wrong) so you can evaluate them the same way.

5. Isn’t the appeal to relevantly similar actions slippery?

Yes, the appeal to relevantly similar cases can get slippery. That’s why we have to be factually
accurate that the factor applies in one case but not the other, and consistent such as giving the
factor equal weight regardless of who is in the end of the line.

What prevents me from appealing to trivial differences? Suppose that I’m the only person with six
toes. What keeps me from saying, “It’s all right for me to kill you but wrong for you to kill me,
because I have six toes and you don’t”?

What if we switched places, I’m the one who have six toes instead? Would you agree that just
because I have six toes, it’s okay for me to kill you? I bet you wouldn’t.

SUMMARY

Logicality: Consistency requires that we accept the logical consequences of our beliefs.
Incompatible beliefs is a violation to consistency.

Ends–means: Consistency also requires that our means match our ends. We are inconsistent if
we dont carry out our believed means to meet our ends.

Conscientiousness: Actions, resolutions and desires should also be in harmony with our moral
beliefs. A clash between the aforementioned is a violation to conscientiousness. With this, we can
use consistency to attack flawed moral principles and point out the flaws in belief systems by
evaluating the consistency in one’s moral premises.
Impartiality: Consistency requires that we evaluate an act based on what the act is like,
regardless of the individuals involved. It requires one to look at situations thinking that a wrong
action committed by another is also a wrong action if he performs it himself.

Why be consistent?

Relativist: Social conventions

Relativists say that consistency norms allows a society to function as it allows us to be impartial
and consider others.

Subjectivist: Feelings, self-interest and contributes to subjectivist view

Emotivism: Accords to feelings
Subjectivists and emotivism believe that consistency supports self-interest as inconsistency
confuses and frustrates our desires and brings about social retributions.

Idealist: Rationality and ideal observance

An idealist would agree with consistency because it allows one to be rational with their beliefs
and actions.

Supernaturalist: Religious beliefs

A supernaturalist would believe in consistency because it supports conscientiousness and
impartiality.

Prescriptivist: Logical consistency and use of the word ‘ought’

A prescriptivist, or one who believes that a certain language usage is preferred over another,
believes that misusing the word ought is a violation to conscientiousness or impartiality and
asks that we ought to be logically consistent.

Intuitionist: Consistency is a duty

An intuitionist, on the other hand, believes that consistency is a duty and that this alone is a self-
evident truth.