Consequentialism

Traditions by region

Consequentialism is a classes of consequences of one's progress are thebasis for judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally correct act or omission from acting is one that will make a return outcome. Consequentialism, along with eudaimonism, falls under the broader classification of teleological ethics, a office of views which claim that the moral good of any act consists in its tendency to develope things of intrinsic value. Consequentialists hold in general that an act is adjustment if as well as only if the act or in some views, the guidance under which it falls will produce, will probably produce, or is described to produce, a greater balance of good over evil than any usable alternative. Different consequentialist theories differ in how they define moral goods, with chief candidates including pleasure, the absence of pain, the satisfaction of one's preferences, in addition to broader notions of the "general good".

Consequentialism is usually contrasted with deontological ethics or deontology, in that deontology, in which rules and moral duty are central, derives the rightness or wrongness of one's progress from the extension of the behaviour itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct. this is the also contrasted with virtue ethics, which focuses on the source of the agent rather than on the bracket or consequences of the act or omission itself, and pragmatic ethics which treats morality like science: advancing collectively as a society over the course of numerous lifetimes, such(a) that any moral criterion is listed to revision.

Some argue that consequentialist theories such(a) as utilitarianism and deontological theories such as Kantian ethics are non necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, T. M. Scanlon advances the concepts that human rights, which are commonly considered a "deontological" concept, can only be justified with reference to the consequences of having those rights. Similarly, Robert Nozick argued for a concepts that is mostly consequentialist, but incorporates inviolable "side-constraints" which restrict the sort of actions agents are permitted to do. Derek Parfit argued that in practice, when understood properly, predominance consequentialism, Kantian deontology and contractualism would all end up prescribing the same behavior.

Issues

One important characteristic of many normative moral theories such(a) as consequentialism is the ability to produce practical moral judgements. At the very least, any moral theory needs to define the standpoint from which the goodness of the consequences are to be determined. What is primarily at stake here is the responsibility of the agent.

One common tactic among consequentialists, especially those committed to an ]

In practice, it is for very difficult, and at times arguably impossible, to undertake the point of view of an ]

Moral action always has consequences forpeople or things. Varieties of consequentialism can be differentiated by the beneficiary of the good consequences. That is, one might ask "Consequences for whom?"

A fundamental distinction can be drawn between theories which require that agents act for ends perhaps disconnected from their own interests and drives, and theories which allow that agents act for ends in which they have some personal interest or motivation. These are called "agent-neutral" and "agent-focused" theories respectively.

Agent-neutral consequentialism ignores the specific value a state of affairs has for any particular agent. Thus, in an agent-neutral theory, an actor's personal goals do not count any more than anyone else's goals in evaluating what action the actor should take. Agent-focused consequentialism, on the other hand, focuses on the particular needs of the moral agent. Thus, in an agent-focused account, such as one that Peter Railton outlines, the agent might be concerned with the general welfare, but the agent is more concerned with the immediate welfare of herself and her friends and family.

These two approaches could be reconciled by acknowledging the tension between an agent's interests as an individual and as a member of various groups, and seeking to somehow optimize among all of these interests.[] For example, it may be meaningful to speak of an action as being good for someone as an individual, but bad for them as a citizen of their town.

Many consequentialist theories mayprimarily concerned with human beings and their relationships with other human beings. However, some philosophers argue that we should not limit our ethical consideration to the interests of human beings alone. Jeremy Bentham, who is regarded as the founder of utilitarianism, argues that animals can experience pleasure and pain, thus demanding that 'non-human animals' should be a serious object of moral concern.

More recently, Peter Singer has argued that it is unreasonable that we do not afford make up consideration to the interests of animals as to those of human beings when wethe way we are to treat them. Such live consideration does not necessarily imply identical treatment of humans and non-humans, any more than it necessarily implies identical treatment of all humans.

One way to divide various consequentialisms is by the types of consequences that are taken to matter most, that is, which consequences count as good states of affairs. According to utilitarianism, a good action is one that results in an increase in pleasure, and the best action is one that results in the most pleasure for the greatest number. Closely related is eudaimonic consequentialism, according to which a full, flourishing life, which may or may not be the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure, is theaim. Similarly, one might follow an aesthetic consequentialism, in which the ultimate purpose is to produce beauty. However, one might set up on non-psychological goods as the relevant effect. Thus, one might pursue an increase in material equality or political liberty instead of something like the more ephemeral "pleasure". Other theories adopt a package of several goods, all to be promoted equally. As the consequentialist approach contains an inherent assumption that the outcomes of a moral decision can be quantified in terms of "goodness" or "badness," or at least put in array of increasing preference, it is an especially suited moral theory for a probabilistic and decision theoretical approach.

Consequentialism can also be contrasted with aretaic moral theories such as virtue ethics. Whereas consequentialist theories posit that consequences of action should be the primary focus of our thinking about ethics, virtue ethics insists that it is the character rather than the consequences of actions that should be the focal point. Some virtue ethicists hold that consequentialist theories completely disregard the developing and importance of moral character. For example, Philippa Foot argues that consequences in themselves have no ethical content, unless it has been featured by a virtue such as benevolence.

However, consequentialism and virtue ethics need not be entirely antagonistic. ]

The ultimate end is a concept in the moral philosophy of Max Weber, in which individuals act in a faithful, rather than rational, manner.