•

Module 3

Consequentialism
Lesson 1: Consequentialism in Perspective
Lesson 2: General Divisions of Consequentialism
Lesson 3: Complex Types of Consequentialism
Lesson 4: Utilitarianism and Its Basic Forms
Lesson 1: Consequentialism in Perspective
Consequentialism and other Ethical Theories
• Normative ethical theories are generally based on three morally relevant features
of actions—that actions (a) lead to certain consequences, (b) follow or violate
certain rules, and (c) are performed by agents with character traits.
1. Consequentialism
• The consequences of actions are the fundamental morally relevant consideration
in making moral judgments.
• An action is morally good if it results in good or desirable consequences, while it
is morally bad if it results in bad or undesirable consequences.
2. Deontology
• The rules that actions follow are the fundamental morally relevant consideration
in making moral judgments.
• An action is morally good if it is done in conformity with a good rule, while it is
bad if done in conformity with a bad rule.
3. Virtue ethics
• The character of agents is the fundamental morally relevant consideration in
making moral judgments.
• An action is morally good if it is done by a virtuous person (a person with good
character traits) while it is morally bad when done by a vicious person (a person
with bad character traits).
Inherent and Instrumental Good
 • “Good consequences” in consequentialism refer to consequences promoting an
inherent good.
• Inherent Good: good in itself; desired for its own sake.
• Instrumental Good: good in relation to another good; desired in so far as it
serves as a means to attain another good.
• Example of an intrinsic good: Happiness (Aristotle)
• Happiness is an intrinsic good for we desire it for its own sake. We desire
other things to attain happiness; but we desire happiness just to experience
it. Other things we desire to achieve happiness, such as good health,
wealth, and healthy relationships, among others, are instrumental goods.
Lesson 2: General Divisions of Consequentialism
Two Considerations about Consequences:
1. Is pleasure (or happiness) the only inherent good (and pain the only inherent
bad)?:
• YES  Hedonism (or Hedonistic Consequentialism)
• NO  Non-hedonism (or Non-hedonistic Consequentialism)
2. Are the consequences to (or directly affecting) the agent the primary
consideration?
• YES  Agent-relative (or Egoistic) Consequentialism
• NO  Agent-neutral (or Non-egoistic/Impartial) Consequentialism
First General Division:
Hedonism vs. Non-hedonism
• Hedonism: pleasure is the only inherent good.
1. Pleasure is inherently good.
2. Pleasure is the only inherent good.
• Non-hedonism rejects hedonism in two ways:
1. Exclusive Non-hedonism: pleasure is not inherently good. Something else is
(which may be power, preference-satisfaction, and others).
2. Inclusive non-hedonism: pleasure is inherently good but there are others (such as
power, preference-satisfaction, truth, beauty, and knowledge).
Second General Division:
Agent-relative vs. Agent-neutral Consequentialism
(Egoistic vs. Impartial Consequentialism)
• Agent-relative consequentialism: the consequences to the agent are primary; they
outweigh the consequences to other people.
• Agent-neutral consequentialism: the consequences that promote the greatest overall
benefits of all affected persons, regardless of their recipients, are primary; personal good
or happiness may sometimes be necessary to sacrifice to promote the same.
Lesson 3: Complex Forms of Consequentialism
• The two general divisions of consequentialism overlap and qualify each other.
Accordingly, they combine to form four complex types of consequentialism, which may
be termed as:
1. Agent-relative Hedonism
2. Agent-relative Non-hedonism
3. Agent-neutral Hedonism
4. Agent-neutral non-hedonism
1. Agent-relative hedonism: an action is morally good if it promotes the agent’s own
pleasure or happiness.
• But which among the agent’s pleasures are primary? (a) Active Hedonism: the
agent’s immediate though momentary pleasures are primary (Aristippus); (b)
Passive Hedonism: the agent’s long-lasting though non-immediate pleasures are
primary (Epicurus).
2. Agent-relative non-hedonism: an action is morally good if it promotes the agent’s own
intrinsic good, which does not necessarily correspond to pleasure.
• For some this intrinsic good refers to power (Nietzsche), desire-satisfaction (Hare
and Singer), and others.
3. Agent-neutral Hedonism: an action is morally good if it maximizes the overall happiness
(or pleasure) of all affected persons .
4. Agent-neutral Non-hedonism: an action is morally good if it maximizes the overall
welfare of all affected persons. (”Welfare” generally refer to beneficial consequences
which may or may not include pleasure/happiness)
—————————
 • Agent-neutral/impartial consequentialism is best represented by the ethical theory called
utilitarianism, which also happens to be the most influential form of consequentialism.
The various forms of utilitarianism, accordingly, serve as representatives of the different
forms of agent-neutral consequentialism.
Lesson 4: Utilitarianism and Its Basic Forms
Utilitarianism: an action is morally good if it maximizes the overall welfare of all affected
persons / promotes ”the greatest good of the greatest number of people.”
3 Basic Features of Utilitarianism (Hare)
1. Consequentialist. Utilitarianism regards the consequences of actions as the primary
consideration in the moral evaluation of actions.
2. Welfarist. Utilitarianism seeks to promote the welfare (well being, happiness, benefits,
advantages, etc.) of persons.
3. Aggregationist. Utilitarianism seeks to maximize the overall welfare of all persons
involved in an action.
• The overall welfare is the net sum total of benefits of all options: sum total of
benefits minus the sum total of costs.
Forms of Utilitarianism
Two Considerations:
1. Should the overall welfare to be maximized only involve pleasure (or happiness)?
• Yes  Hedonistic Utilitarianism
• No  Non-hedonistic Utilitarianism
2. Should the utilitarian principle (maximizing overall welfare or promoting the greatest
good of the greatest number of people) be applied directly to actions or to the rules
governing these actions?
• To the Actions  Act Utilitarianism
• To the Rules  Rule Utilitarianism
A. Hedonistic Utilitarianism
• The overall welfare to be maximized through our actions pertains only to pleasure
or happiness.
• Question: Is there is a qualitative difference between physical and mental
pleasures? Are they the same in terms of value?
 • Quantitative Hedonistic Utilitarianism: there is no qualitative difference between
physical and mental pleasures; there are only quantitative differences among
pleasures (Jeremy Bentham).
• Qualitative Hedonistic Utilitarianism: the value or quality of mental pleasures,
because they involve the exercise of the higher faculty of reason, is greater than
that of physical pleasures (John Stuart Mill).
The Hedonistic Calculus
• The systematic method developed by Bentham for calculating the quantity of pleasures
(mental and physical). Factors to consider in the calculation:
1. Intensity --(How engaging is the experience of pleasure): The more intense the
experience of pleasure, the greater the value of the pleasure.
2. Duration --(How long the pleasure lasts): The longer the experience of pleasure, the
greater the value of the pleasure.
3. Certainty --(The probability that the pleasure will occur): The greater the probability that
the desired pleasure will be experienced, the greater the value of the pleasure.
4. Propinquity (remoteness) –(How far off in the future will the pleasure be experienced)
The shorter the temporal distance between an act and the pleasure that it will produce, the
greater the value of the pleasure.
4. Fecundity --(The chance a sensation will be followed by sensations of the same kind:
pleasures, if it be pleasure; pains, if it be pain): The higher the probability that an
experience of pleasure will be followed by further experiences of pleasure, the greater the
value of the pleasure.
5. Purity --(The chance a sensation will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind:
pains, if it be pleasure; pleasures, if it be pain): The higher the probability that the
experience of pleasure will not be followed by an experience of pain, the greater the
value of the pleasure.
6. Extent --(The number of persons affected by the sensation): The higher the number of
persons to experience the pleasure, the greater the value of the pleasure.
B. Non-Hedonistic Utilitarianism
• The over-all welfare to be maximized through our actions is either not pleasure
(or happiness) or not limited to such.
1. Ideal (or Pluralistic) Utilitarianism
 • For G. E. Moore, there are, in addition to pleasure, other things that are worth
pursuing for their own sake and thus are good regardless of whether they result in
pleasure or not. They include knowledge, beauty, and good relationships, among
others.
2. Preference Utilitarianism
• For Richard Hare and Peter Singer, desire/preference-satisfaction is more
fundamental than the experience of pleasure, as we sometimes prefer to satisfy
our desires/preferences even if it would lead to the experience of pain.
Desire/preference satisfaction is thus the inherent good, not pleasure.
C. Act and Rule Utilitarianism
Question: Which is primary, the consequences of an act or the consequences
of following or violating the rule governing the act?
1. Act Utilitarianism
• The consequences of an act is primary. An action is morally good if it maximizes
overall welfare of all persons involved, regardless of the rule it violates.
2. Rule Utilitarianism
• The consequences of following or violating the rule governing the act is primary.
An action is morally good if it conforms to an optimific rule, regardless of the
consequences of the act.
• A rule is optimific if general conformity to it will maximize overall welfare of all
persons involved.
----------------
• Act utilitarianism is the standard form of utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism was
developed to deal with some challenging cases such as the morality of breaking contracts.
Rule utilitarianism is regarded by some as a compromise between utilitarianism and
deontology.
• The hedonistic- non-hedonistic division overlaps with the act-rule division which gives
rise to complex forms of utilitarianism.