ATS2839 Study Guide - Final Guide: Royal Adelaide Hospital, Philip Pettit, Consequentialism
18 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Consequentialism
Philip Pettit
- Parallels between consequentialism and the realisation that the sole importance in this life
is to understand the history of the species, or the only purpose we have is to value
individual relationships. Do we spend our lives teaching others and devoting ourselves to
as many as possible to promote bonds, or do we teach ourselves and further our
understanding and form bonds between kin to honour this value?
- Whatever values an individual or organisation upholds, the consequentialist will promote
them. Non-consequentialists will honour some values to an extent, and some must be
honoured irrespective of those who promote them.
- By making a choice we, knowingly or not, promote a value. These prognoses define the
value in a certain outcome and can be additive.
On Non-consequentialism: there is no sense in promoting abstract values such as loyalty or
respect as there is no way to count the beneficial outcome, or contend that the best action is
not defined by the prognoses of an option.
On arguments against consequentialism: “Consequentialism, it is said, would make nothing
unthinkable.” Many argue that a consequentialist may be driven to do terrible things by the
idea of maximising good, there are no moral laws against murder or torture or other
wrongdoings, in fact it is promoted if it will maximise utility. This is true, Pettit says, but only
relevant in truly horrific and rare cases, and this clause deemphasizes the horrific nature. Pettit
then furthers this with a counter argument, is it not as terrible to avoid such horrible actions and
starve the rest of the population of the good that could come of it? Consequentialism aims to
justify an action over its alternatives, rather than to justify a sole action. Then, how far do we
take this weighing of alternatives? Are we to apply such vigorous deliberation to every action,
and how far must our deliberations travel? Do we think only of those immediately affected or
must we extend our thoughts to include the community, the country, perhaps the world?
Besides, how are we to weigh the outcomes, what power do I have as an agent to divide and
sum the total happiness? Pettit argues that consequentialism can act as a guiding system to
actions, but exist lightly enough to avoid the excessive calculation of every action. This means
that we must steer away from act consequentialism, and be guided by rule consequentialism,
where rule consequentialism guides decisions by rules only.
On arguments for consequentialism: Consequentialism is a universal and action guiding
theory, it does not restrict actions and promotes the greater good. It is said to be simplistic as
it can define the moral right action in any case without sub clauses or exceptions.
J. J. C. Smart
- Utilitarianism is favoured as it acts to avoid preventable suffering.
- This leads to an argument against deontology; we must prevent suffering even if it does
break some moral rules, for example, I have promised a dying man on a desert island
that I will give his riches to the Jockey Club, instead, however, I donate the amount to the
Royal Adelaide Hospital. Anyone with a heart would agree with these actions. A
deontologist would argue that it is the rules that keep them moral, and by breaking them
they cross over to the inhumane.
- We should think about ultimate ends.
- We need to think about ultimate ends temporally as well, for if an action were to save
millions in the future, and allow a future, then we are to act. However, these sorts of
large scale future predictions are often impossible to make, let alone get right.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Bernard Williams
George example: Should our moral views completely dictate our lives? George is a chemist,
who is failing to find a job, but needs to support his growing family, he is offered a job
researching chemical warfare, which he declines. However, George declining the job will not
eliminate the job or the study, perhaps if George takes the job he could work to a lower
ability. This example works to show a difference in moral rules and personal benefit.
Jim example: An American captain promises to shoot all those captured unless Jim shoots one,
it is against Jim’s morals to kill anyone, but in so doing he saves the rest of the group.
On integrity: In both examples the utilitarian says they should ignore personal preference and
go ahead with what will produce the most good, accepting the job and killing the one. Do we
all hold a responsibility for our own actions, as opposed to a responsibility to the situation?
Meaning, Jim is only responsible for the death he causes personally, not the deaths he causes
by not doing anything. Integrity, to consequentialists, is irrelevant, we must promote good
despite our own wants and values.
Williams argues that a good consequentialist is able to find a balance between personal
values and values that promote the greater good. If we ignore our own desires to fully
maximise utility we will deplete our own happiness and be unable to do the maximal good in
the community, however, if we listen to ourselves and allow ourselves some narcissistic benefits,
our happiness will drive our altruistic tendencies. Does this get around the brain in a vat
problem? If we are maximising utility then surely we should allow ourselves pleasure, even if
it’s false. When conflicting values are at play, it is unrealistic to expect an agent to give up his
own integrity altogether.
David O. Brink
- Utilitarianism assigns moral value impersonally, this does not, however, presuppose that
an agent must act impersonally.
- If it is irrelevant whether or not value is assigned impersonally if we are to personally
dictate our own projects, then utilitarianism acts only as a guideline to right actions, not a
dictation of decision making.
- If personal projects and the decisions to uphold them is important to autonomy, then this
should be respected in the division of moral value.
- Scheffler introduces a “hybrid” view, a system where agent centered projects permit but
do not require the maximisation of utility.
- A theory may understand the moral significance of Jim’s personal values but ignore the
agency, and declare the values of the captured as significant as Jim’s.
- Duties override personal good and values. This leads to the idea that personal wants are
not moral worries, we should not sympathise with Jim for moral reasons, rather we should
just be sad.
- Jim, while deciding, may doubt the moral system, he may be a good utilitarian but also
worry about the demanding nature or justification of such utilitarian good moral acts.
On internalism and externalism: Externalism says that agent autonomy is based on a theory
of rationality or reason, whereas internalism believes that moral justification lies in the moral
theory.
The amoralist’s challenge:
The amoralist can recognise the moral thing to do, but this does not mean that there is inherent
reason or motivation to do such a thing. I.e. why should I be moral?
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Rationalism
Immanuel Kant
- All goods have limitations, with the exception of only good will. Character traits of the
mind can be used for evil, persistence, courage and respect, however it is the will that
deems them good.
- The greatest freedom is to go against your inclinations. Perhaps through autonomy we
can decide what is right.
- We have good because of a good will, it is not good because of outcomes, but because
it exists in itself.
- Happiness could be brought about easily by solely following volition and ignoring
reason, yet we let reason drive some of our decisions, even if it goes against our wants.
This being said, if we only ever follow reason, we will never find happiness. Reason,
therefore, must exist to produce wills that are good in themselves.
- We must act to treat ourselves and humanity as an end, not only a means.
On duty: We have acted morally if we act in accordance to duty, not, rather, out of an
external wish or drive. The friend of humanity is one who acts in a good way but has no moral
worth, that is, they act rightly but not because of duty, only because it pleases him. When, say,
he goes through turmoil and loses this pleasure of helping others, but continues to do so, he
gains moral worth.
- We have a duty to preserve ourselves and to promote our own happiness, so that we are
able to help others and are not bedridden by a mental or physical ailment.
- Moral worth depends on the principles behind an action, rather than the act itself. Moral
worth also does not depend on the intended or expected effect of an action, neither in
any effect driven principle, but is rather based on the will itself.
- From these principles of rationality (that reason drives the will, and morality arises from
reason) comes the categorical imperative, that maxims that are universalisable and
good, are the moral action guiding rules.
Christine Korsgaard
- Aristotelian morality says an agent lacks moral worth if he does not enjoy being moral,
Kantian theory dictates, however, that those who perform their duties despite not wanting
to are the most moral. Korsgaard says that this disagreement is not of ethical nature,
rather psychological.
- Furthermore, Aristotle is a virtue ethicist, whereas Kant follows deontology.
- Rationality goes far beyond decision making, rather it extends to cognitive functions such
as communication and disagreements.
- Kantian rationality is the minds attempt to systemise and understand the world around us.
He says that rationality can be practical as it can be active in decision making, it can be
an intrinsic driving function.
- Korsgaard suggests that a virtue based system may unify a rational based morality and
a will based system.
On acting out of duty: Kant argues that good-willed actions are good because of how they
are decided upon. The dutiful person acts out of accordance to duty, that is, they lobby for a
better world through the accordance of universalisable maxims.
On reflection: The double aspect theory of motivation declares that an agent’s motivation
includes two things: the incentive and the the volition that decides whether or not to act on the
incentive. Moral value lies in the decision making. Does this mean that natural inclinations do
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Parallels between consequentialism and the realisation that the sole importance in this life is to understand the history of the species, or the only purpose we have is to value individual relationships. Whatever values an individual or organisation upholds, the consequentialist will promote them. Non-consequentialists will honour some values to an extent, and some must be honoured irrespective of those who promote them. By making a choice we, knowingly or not, promote a value. These prognoses define the value in a certain outcome and can be additive. This is true, pettit says, but only relevant in truly horrific and rare cases, and this clause deemphasizes the horrific nature. Consequentialism aims to justify an action over its alternatives, rather than to justify a sole action. Pettit argues that consequentialism can act as a guiding system to actions, but exist lightly enough to avoid the excessive calculation of every action.
