what's wrong with being a consequentialist?

[miss djax]

howdy,

so in all of the 'internet is serious bizness' stuff lately there seems to be a common thread that i see emerge.

i get the general impression that folks thing its bad and/or wrong to be seen as a consequentialist.

i think i might be missing something. whats so wrong about being a consequentialist?

[David B]

howdy,

so in all of the 'internet is serious bizness' stuff lately there seems to be a common thread that i see emerge.

i get the general impression that folks thing its bad and/or wrong to be seen as a consequentialist.

i think i might be missing something. whats so wrong about being a consequentialist?

It's too narrow a view, I think, if I understand what the concept means. Or how it has been meant, from context.

I sort of gather that consequentialist, as I pick up the meaning from context (it's not a word that I'd come across before the last few weeks) means that if someone acts in some way, then justice or pragamatism leads one to stop said someone from doing it again, and anything more than that is a punishment, which is unjustified, because one doesn't want to punish, one just wants the actions to stop.

But another purpose of justice, both in a broad sense, and the narrow one of internet discussion boards, is also to discourage others from indulging in the same undesirable actions.

That this last is being ignored in the consequentialism as practised is what is wrong with it, IMV.

David

[miss djax]

got it, i think.

i had arrived at a different definition of term. i hadn't seen the punishment part of it. to me, the resultant effect was caused by the consequences of a person's actions. it wasn't punishment, it was the result.

[Garnet]

got it, i think.

i had arrived at a different definition of term. i hadn't seen the punishment part of it. to me, the resultant effect was caused by the consequences of a person's actions. it wasn't punishment, it was the result.

Bold added for emphasis.

This is where I am. I've seen the argument that a consequence is also a punishment. Well, I suppose it may be perceived that way but the person who is experiencing the consequence but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's intended as a punishment.

Suppose I check out books from a library and I return them weeks late and one of them is so badly damaged that it has to be replaced.

I am fined. So, I pay the fine and I also squawk loudly saying, "What's the harm? You can replace the books with the money I give you." I check out more books. I return them weeks late and three of them are so badly damaged that they have to be replaced.

I am fined again and sternly warned that if I keep this up, my library privileges will be revoked. I holler again, "But you're getting my money! What difference does it make how long I keep the books or if they are damaged! Just buy new ones with the money I give you! What difference does it make if I don't follow your silly rules?" I pay the fine and I check out more books. This time I turn them in weeks late and all the books are damaged. My library privileges are revoked.

Have I been punished?

[Lisa0315]

Well, being OCD, and especially of the Pure O variety, I suppose I could be a consequentialist. It is one of the things that I have to tell myself not to do. I am not responsible for everyone in the world. It is not my fault if something bad happens to someone else.

I think the concept is pretty dangerous to the human mind, and it certainly is a fundie doctrine. Being a responsible human being, okay, but seeing punishment/consequences in every little fucking thing? Bad.

I mean, there are people who credit God for giving them a close parking place and Satan if they get a bad one. Uhm, seems to me, God is going to want you to have better health and would therefore give you the further away spot. See, how stupid it is?

Lisa

[Garnet]

Eh, I wouldn't want to see it applied to every little thing either. But there certainly are consequences for behavior. Ya just can't get around that. Not every consequence is bad.

[Lisa0315]

Eh, I wouldn't want to see it applied to every little thing either. But there certainly are consequences for behavior. Ya just can't get around that. Not every consequence is bad.

Of course, I am just saying there is a fine line between taking responsibilty and erroneous judgment that something is the consequence of another's actions.

For example, Hurricane Katrina and 911, there were consequences, causes, and effects. However, they weren't judgments of God, and just suppose for a moment that you are not an atheist. They weren't judgments not because God does not exist, but because God does not judge at this time in history. This is the age of grace. Those who taught otherwise were not just wrong, but false teachers. That is why I say at least the RELIGIOUS form of consequentialism is DANGEROUS. It gives permission to criminalize what is perceived as moral issues. It takes away rights. It allows the enslavement of others. It encourages war.

Lisa

[Garnet]

Gotcha, Lisa. Thanks for explaining.

[miss djax]

got it, i think.

i had arrived at a different definition of term. i hadn't seen the punishment part of it. to me, the resultant effect was caused by the consequences of a person's actions. it wasn't punishment, it was the result.

Bold added for emphasis.

This is where I am. I've seen the argument that a consequence is also a punishment. Well, I suppose it may be perceived that way but the person who is experiencing the consequence but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's intended as a punishment.


Have I been punished?

we think alike :)

if you don't mown your lawn, the grass gets tall. is that a punishment? the punishment is when the city fines you for having a shitty yard ;) if i don't drink enough water, is my punishment being thirsty?

so whats the difference in how i'm reading things? am i a cause and effectualist?

i'm not being snarky, i'm genuinely curious. i'm still not sure i'm on board with consequence equals punishment. that's way more of a value judgement than i thinking about.

[Danhalen]

A consquentialist is not anything like has been described. A utilitarian is a type of consequentialist. That is, the moral worth of any action is measured in terms of its consequent results. A utilitarian bases the worth of an action on how much overall happiness is produced by any particular action (the more happiness produced the better the good).

[Danhalen]

As far as what is wrong with consequentialism, the most common complaint is moral worth is cashed out in terms of results only (intent is not a factor). Another problem with some forms of consequentialism, and I think this is where David was coming from, is that there is no sense of justice if we are necessarily cashing things out in terms of the best pay out. For example, if enslaving the entire state of Nevada made the majority of people in the US happy then we ought to enslave the state of Nevada.

[Febble]

For me, the problem with consequentialism is feedback loops. Consequences are chaotic, in the sense that anything with a feedback loop can be chaotic - butterfly in Peking and all that.

Consequences have consequences, and those consequences have consequences, and so as a guide to action, which is what it must be if it's an ethical stance, it's error-prone.

[Danhalen]

For me, the problem with consequentialism is feedback loops. Consequences are chaotic, in the sense that anything with a feedback loop can be chaotic - butterfly in Peking and all that.

Consequences have consequences, and those consequences have consequences, and so as a guide to action, which is what it must be if it's an ethical stance, it's error-prone.I think this is the criticism that we cannot know (without a tremendous amount of calculation power) what the consequences of our actions really will be. J.S. Mill did attempt to address that problem in Utilitarianism.

[Garnet]

I think those of us who aren't into studying philosophy have been trying to pick up what it means through context and it sounds like we don't get it.

I'm not sure I will get it either.

Long philosophical discussions tend to cause my eyes to roll back in my head.

[Anne]

I'm confused.

Logical consequences are the preferred method of child rearing...

[Lisa0315]

I'm confused.

Logical consequences are the preferred method of child rearing...

True, but it can be taken to an extreme. I guess that is what I was getting at.

I am more familiar with Danhalen's terminology than I am with consequentialism. Utilitarianism, I have studied in ethics, and the other side of the coin, which I forget.

Lisa

[Danhalen]

I think those of us who aren't into studying philosophy have been trying to pick up what it means through context and it sounds like we don't get it.

I'm not sure I will get it either.

Long philosophical discussions tend to cause my eyes to roll back in my head.
Oh damn...

I realize my initial response must have been totally shitty, and I apologize for coming across that way. It's just my career goal to become a philosophy professor, and I tend to act like a pretentious philosopher at times on account of that. I guess it's not nearly so easily discerned without having studied it. I've been in an ethics course this semester which is dealing heavily in deontology and consequentialism and so I tend to assume these discussions involve people who have a formal education in philosophy. You can kick me in the virtual balls.

[Danhalen]

I'm confused.

Logical consequences are the preferred method of child rearing...Consequences are a good tool to learn what not to do in a non-moral setting; touch fire and you get burned. Ethically you should be able to discern what is good behavior without having to actualize the consequences. I do not think you want your child to kill someone before they realize murder is wrong.

[Danhalen]

Utilitarianism, I have studied in ethics, and the other side of the coin, which I forget.Deontology is generally the flipside; moral worth is determined by adherence to a principle (Kant's categorical imperative). There are quite a few other theories out there (Eudaimonist is an Aristotelian virtue ethics practitioner and I am somewhat partial to care ethics (though I would not claim to be a care ethicist)).

[Febble]

For me, the problem with consequentialism is feedback loops. Consequences are chaotic, in the sense that anything with a feedback loop can be chaotic - butterfly in Peking and all that.

Consequences have consequences, and those consequences have consequences, and so as a guide to action, which is what it must be if it's an ethical stance, it's error-prone.I think this is the criticism that we cannot know (without a tremendous amount of calculation power) what the consequences of our actions really will be. J.S. Mill did attempt to address that problem in Utilitarianism.

Right. A practically impossible amount of calculation power. Take the UK system for evaluating schools, using tests (SATs) when children arrive in schools and when they leave. Sounds great - the consequence of the tests should be that we can see which schools are failing and which doing well, identify best practice and implement it in the failing schools.

Except for feedback - schools teach to the test, parents buy property in the neighbourhood of schools with high SATs scores, scores in those areas go up because those parents also buy in tutors, house prices go up even more, poor kids move out etc.

You end up with lousy schools at the top of the table, and good schools at the bottom.

Or take a discussion board. erm. Perhaps not.

[Anne]

I wouldn't call that a 'consequence'. The consequence is the failure of the system. The tests are the action.

[Garnet]

I think those of us who aren't into studying philosophy have been trying to pick up what it means through context and it sounds like we don't get it.

I'm not sure I will get it either.

Long philosophical discussions tend to cause my eyes to roll back in my head.
Oh damn...

I realize my initial response must have been totally shitty, and I apologize for coming across that way. It's just my career goal to become a philosophy professor, and I tend to act like a pretentious philosopher at times on account of that. I guess it's not nearly so easily discerned without having studied it. I've been in an ethics course this semester which is dealing heavily in deontology and consequentialism and so I tend to assume these discussions involve people who have a formal education in philosophy. You can kick me in the virtual balls.

You've no need to apologize, Dan. I didn't view your comments as the least bit snarky. I think I just poorly stated that I didn't realize that people were actually talking about a known philosophical concept.

Hell, I don't even know if philosophical concept is the right term. :D

[Christina]

As far as what is wrong with consequentialism, the most common complaint is moral worth is cashed out in terms of results only (intent is not a factor). Another problem with some forms of consequentialism, and I think this is where David was coming from, is that there is no sense of justice if we are necessarily cashing things out in terms of the best pay out. For example, if enslaving the entire state of Nevada made the majority of people in the US happy then we ought to enslave the state of Nevada.

Bolding mine.

Garnet, I'm with you when it comes to philosophy but this post makes perfect sense to me in terms of the context that I think that you're referring to.

Maybe this stuff isn't so hard for people like us to follow when the posts aren't 5 paragraphs long ; )

Not only didn't you sound snarky Danhelan but you made sense in lay terms. Thanks.

[Febble]

I wouldn't call that a 'consequence'. The consequence is the failure of the system. The tests are the action.

It's a consequence of the action to test kids. The intended consequence was better schools. The actual consequence is worse schools.

The point being that the consequences of any action include changing the conditions under which that action might have those consequences to one in which they might have very different consequences.

It might not be a very good example, but they abound in public policy. For example, taking a dangerous bend out of a road is supposed to stop people killing themselves by driving off the road. But if another consequence is to that people drive faster the results might be more fatalities.

People used to put barriers up on dangerous sections of path - then some were taken down because the consequence was that people assumed that parts of the path with no barriers were safe.

It's not just that consequences are hard to predict, but that knock-on consequences sometimes mean that your original action no longer has even the primary effect it was originally intended to have.

[Anne]

I did say 'logical'. IMO, the consequence is what happens. The desired result may be something different, but well...

we have a saying here. Works in Theory. Too bad we live in Practice.

[Jobar]

Punishment can have social utility.

Just stopping someone from engaging in socially undesirable activity is appropriate if that person is both capable and willing to do what is best for the society they're in. Perhaps they didn't realize their behavior was inappropriate, and simply stopping them and informing them of what they're doing wrong will suffice to stop that behavior. You don't lock up a small child for stealing just because they take away a smaller child's ice cream.

However, some people, like small children, may not get the message from just a simple correction. If they regularly and consistently steal things from those smaller or weaker, punishment becomes appropriate; you inflict sufficient pain on them, or take away sufficient privileges, so that the lesson is driven home that other children are not to be abused just because they are smaller or weaker. Society, in the form of adults, will act to remove whatever immediate gains the thieving child achieves, and also inflict sufficient negative consequences to drive the lesson home.

It's the question of what 'sufficient negative consequences' constitutes that is the problem. It always requires someone to judge.

[Danhalen]

There are consequentialists which work on the negative side of things: that which is good is that which alleviates the most suffering. It's a bit of a demanding school of thought (I'm not sure sleeping is allowed), but I think it addresses the concerns with our ability to judge.

[trendkill]

howdy,

so in all of the 'internet is serious bizness' stuff lately there seems to be a common thread that i see emerge.

i get the general impression that folks thing its bad and/or wrong to be seen as a consequentialist.

i think i might be missing something. whats so wrong about being a consequentialist?I suspect people have a problem with consequentialism because it doesn't take intentions into account. Even if someone means to do evil, if the results of their actions by some fluke of circumstance turn out to be good, then those actions were right, because the consequences are the determining factor as to what is moral. Often people intuitively want to judge a person's morality by his intentions, and consequentialism doesn't allow that.

[JamesBannon]

howdy,

so in all of the 'internet is serious bizness' stuff lately there seems to be a common thread that i see emerge.

i get the general impression that folks thing its bad and/or wrong to be seen as a consequentialist.

i think i might be missing something. whats so wrong about being a consequentialist?I suspect people have a problem with consequentialism because it doesn't take intentions into account. Even if someone means to do evil, if the results of their actions by some fluke of circumstance turn out to be good, then those actions were right, because the consequences are the determining factor as to what is moral. Often people intuitively want to judge a person's morality by his intentions, and consequentialism doesn't allow that.

"Being versus Seeming to be" is a constant problem when we're talking about judging the morality of any human behaviour. The only access we have to motivation is inference from behaviour and we all know how shaky that can be. Non-consequentialism (essentially "virtue ethics" - a variety of Deontological ethics) is just as bad.

[Preno]

I suspect people have a problem with consequentialism because it doesn't take intentions into account. Even if someone means to do evil, if the results of their actions by some fluke of circumstance turn out to be good, then those actions were right, because the consequences are the determining factor as to what is moral. Often people intuitively want to judge a person's morality by his intentions, and consequentialism doesn't allow that.Yes. For example, if my actions has harmful consequences for others, but I simply couldn't have foreseen that. If someone connects the elevator button in my building to a nuclear missile launcher, it would be absurd to say that I was being immoral when I pushed the button. I clearly wasn't.

Morality seems to be more concerned with what consequences our actions can reasonably be expected to have than with what consequences our actions have actually had.

[Danhalen]

Yes. For example, if my actions has harmful consequences for others, but I simply couldn't have foreseen that. If someone connects the elevator button in my building to a nuclear missile launcher, it would be absurd to say that I was being immoral when I pushed the button. I clearly wasn't.Except you pushing your elevator button is a non-moral action (it is neither good nor bad to push an elevator button). You are not accountable for launching the missile because you did not wire the elevator button to it.

Morality seems to be more concerned with what consequences our actions can reasonably be expected to have than with what consequences our actions have actually had.I'm sure it is possible to have a reasonably high expectation for an action to achieve a morally worthy goal and for the action toward that goal to completely miss the mark and cause harm. While we may say the person who committed the action had good intentions we are still in the right to say he fucked up real bad, and that his actions were immoral (despite his intentions).

[Preno]

Yes. For example, if my actions has harmful consequences for others, but I simply couldn't have foreseen that. If someone connects the elevator button in my building to a nuclear missile launcher, it would be absurd to say that I was being immoral when I pushed the button. I clearly wasn't.Except you pushing your elevator button is a non-moral action (it is neither good nor bad to push an elevator button). You are not accountable for launching the missile because you did not wire the elevator button to it.Well, that's exactly my point. The consequences of my act are terrible, but that doesn't mean I did anything immoral. Where are we in disagreement?
Morality seems to be more concerned with what consequences our actions can reasonably be expected to have than with what consequences our actions have actually had.I'm sure it is possible to have a reasonably high expectation for an action to achieve a morally worthy goal and for the action toward that goal to completely miss the mark and cause harm. While we may say the person who committed the action had good intentions we are still in the right to say he fucked up real bad, and that his actions were immoral (despite his intentions).Why would we say that a completely random harmful consequence of an action of mine makes my action immoral? That doesn't appear to be how we use the word.

[Danhalen]

Yes. For example, if my actions has harmful consequences for others, but I simply couldn't have foreseen that. If someone connects the elevator button in my building to a nuclear missile launcher, it would be absurd to say that I was being immoral when I pushed the button. I clearly wasn't.Except you pushing your elevator button is a non-moral action (it is neither good nor bad to push an elevator button). You are not accountable for launching the missile because you did not wire the elevator button to it.Well, that's exactly my point. The consequences of my act are terrible, but that doesn't mean I did anything immoral. Where are we in disagreement?I am saying consequentialism does not necessarily judge your act of pushing an elevator button as morally blame worthy. It seemed to me that your criticism of consequentialism is that it would assign blame to the button pusher. I do not think consequentialists assign blame to inherently non-moral actions.

Morality seems to be more concerned with what consequences our actions can reasonably be expected to have than with what consequences our actions have actually had.I'm sure it is possible to have a reasonably high expectation for an action to achieve a morally worthy goal and for the action toward that goal to completely miss the mark and cause harm. While we may say the person who committed the action had good intentions we are still in the right to say he fucked up real bad, and that his actions were immoral (despite his intentions).Why would we say that a completely random harmful consequence of an action of mine makes my action immoral? That doesn't appear to be how we use the word.Who says it has to be a completely random consequence? It could be a less probable consequence.

[Preno]

Except you pushing your elevator button is a non-moral action (it is neither good nor bad to push an elevator button). You are not accountable for launching the missile because you did not wire the elevator button to it.Well, that's exactly my point. The consequences of my act are terrible, but that doesn't mean I did anything immoral. Where are we in disagreement?I am saying consequentialism does not necessarily judge your act of pushing an elevator button as morally blame worthy. It seemed to me that your criticism of consequentialism is that it would assign blame to the button pusher. I do not think consequentialists assign blame to inherently non-moral actions.What on Earth is an "inherently non-moral action"? If I pressed it in order to crush someone under the elevator, it would be a moral action. Just like if I pressed it in order to launch a nuclear Holocaust.
Why would we say that a completely random harmful consequence of an action of mine makes my action immoral? That doesn't appear to be how we use the word.Who says it has to be a completely random consequence?I do because I make up what the counter-example is gonna be. Consequentialism seems to say that even if the consequence were simply random, the action would be immoral.

[Jobar]

A couple of years ago, at a meeting of the GA Humanists, I heard a talk by a philosophy professor from an Atlanta college on "Ten ethical theories". I still have the excellent handout that came with the lecture, and I've used it frequently since.

Prof. Martin was very up-front that no one of his listed ten (actually eleven; he also listed Divine Command theory, but only to dismiss it) would serve to choose a course of moral action in every circumstance. His comment on consequentialism was that it's very often impossible to determine the consequences of an action beforehand, so that in such cases consequentialism was useless as an ethical guide.

Still, for circumstances where the consequences of an act *can* be known to a good probability, consequentialism becomes a very useful ethical guideline.

No ethical theory can be *absolutely* 'true'. But all the ones Prof. Martin discussed possess some relative truth, and usefulness.

Just recently I discussed the Metal Rules (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=13510&#post13510), each of which can be considered a very succinct ethical theory; no one of which works in every circumstance. But if one carefully choses the right rule to best match the situation, they're well worth knowing.

[Danhalen]

What on Earth is an "inherently non-moral action"? If I pressed it in order to crush someone under the elevator, it would be a moral action. Just like if I pressed it in order to launch a nuclear Holocaust.
A non-moral action is one in which there is no ought involved in deciding whether or not to do it; morality does not apply.

Your scenario presented a case where someone who pushes a button to use an elevator kills many people on accident. Then you argue under the premises of consequentialism that it is immoral for him to have accidentally killed all those people because of the consequences. I am arguing that since the act of using an elevator is a non-moral action it is not immoral to have pushed the button. The person who is held morally accountable for the missile launch is the person who wired the button.

I do because I make up what the counter-example is gonna be. Consequentialism seems to say that even if the consequence were simply random, the action would be immoral.You get to deny all other logical possibilities? You never precluded the possibility of other outcomes.

Yes, random outcomes do count in consequentialism. That is a fair criticism. I am also claiming that two possible determinate outcomes count as well. If the morally valuable outcome is more probable than the morally blameworthy and the latter is the consequence which becomes actual then we have every right to cast blame on the agent performing the action.

[Preno]

What on Earth is an "inherently non-moral action"? If I pressed it in order to crush someone under the elevator, it would be a moral action. Just like if I pressed it in order to launch a nuclear Holocaust.
A non-moral action is one in which there is no ought involved in deciding whether or not to do it; morality does not apply.

Your scenario presented a case where someone who pushes a button to use an elevator kills many people on accident. Then you argue under the premises of consequentialism that it is immoral for him to have accidentally killed all those people because of the consequences. I am arguing that since the act of using an elevator is a non-moral action it is not immoral to have pushed the button. The person who is held morally accountable for the missile launch is the person who wired the button.How does that explain what an "inherently non-moral action" is? Does my state of knowledge come into play when determining what an "inherently non-moral action" is? It seems so, which already constitutes a denial of consequentialism.

And anyway, it would be perfectly trivial to come up with exampled of moral actions which backfire for unpredictable reasons and to which the same argument applies.
Yes, random outcomes do count in consequentialism. That is a fair criticism. I am also claiming that two possible determinate outcomes count as well. If the morally valuable outcome is more probable than the morally blameworthy and the latter is the consequence which becomes actual then we have every right to cast blame on the agent performing the action.Oh, certainly.

[Danhalen]

What on Earth is an "inherently non-moral action"? If I pressed it in order to crush someone under the elevator, it would be a moral action. Just like if I pressed it in order to launch a nuclear Holocaust.
A non-moral action is one in which there is no ought involved in deciding whether or not to do it; morality does not apply.

Your scenario presented a case where someone who pushes a button to use an elevator kills many people on accident. Then you argue under the premises of consequentialism that it is immoral for him to have accidentally killed all those people because of the consequences. I am arguing that since the act of using an elevator is a non-moral action it is not immoral to have pushed the button. The person who is held morally accountable for the missile launch is the person who wired the button.How does that explain what an "inherently non-moral action" is? Does my state of knowledge come into play when determining what an "inherently non-moral action" is? It seems so, which already constitutes a denial of consequentialism.

And anyway, it would be perfectly trivial to come up with exampled of moral actions which backfire for unpredictable reasons and to which the same argument applies.A non-moral action is an action which is morally irrelevant. Choosing to wear a red or blue shirt is a non-moral choice which leads to the action of wearing the red shirt, and it would be silly to say to there is an element of morality in choosing the color of your shirt. That's not to say I could not cook up a scenario where shirt color is morally relevant, but in most cases it is simply non-moral. Likewise, choosing to use an elevator to get from one floor to another does not entice the observer to apply moral praise or blame on the action taker. It is simply a non-moral action like walking up or down a staircase.

I agree it is a trivial matter to come up with a different example. I just do not think a consequentialist would place blame on a person who pushed an elevator button without knowing someone else had wired it to a nuclear missile.

[Alethias]

howdy,

so in all of the 'internet is serious bizness' stuff lately there seems to be a common thread that i see emerge.

i get the general impression that folks thing its bad and/or wrong to be seen as a consequentialist.

i think i might be missing something. whats so wrong about being a consequentialist?I suspect people have a problem with consequentialism because it doesn't take intentions into account. Even if someone means to do evil, if the results of their actions by some fluke of circumstance turn out to be good, then those actions were right, because the consequences are the determining factor as to what is moral. Often people intuitively want to judge a person's morality by his intentions, and consequentialism doesn't allow that.I probably count as a consequentialist. If a man is given a loaf of bread, and by that action his suffering is alleviated and there is an increase in happiness as a result, then the effect is good regardless of the intent. If someone consistently intends evil, but good (defined in this case as an an alleviation of suffering and an increase in happiness) is the consistent result, then the person is by practice good whether or not by intent.

I think that is a silly postulate, though. I could be wrong, but I generally think that good actions are a result of good intentions, and evil actions are generally(not always, but generally) are a result of evil intentions. People practice to get it right. If I'm enough of a fuckup that my evil intentions result in good, I'll practice until my evil intentions result in evil(and vice versa, of course ;) ).

This doesn't take into account unintended side effects, and it assumes straightforward cause-and-effect relationships, and the universe doesn't seem to work that way, so it's not a perfect theory, but it's the general way I tend to view the world.

[trendkill]

I'm not saying the view of consequentialism that I mentioned is right, I'm just pointing out possible perceptions of it that could lead to negativity. I haven't given much thought to consequentialism itself, but I don't think I'm a consequentialist, and I'd be afraid that if I were, I'd have to give up on the idea that e.g. attempted murder is wrong.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that good people will consistently do good and vice versa, either. It often seems that both halves of my country think the other half is consistently causing evil consequences in their political activities while they themselves are consistently causing good ones. I don't find it all that farfetched that half of them could be correct.

[Danhalen]

... I don't think I'm a consequentialist, and I'd be afraid that if I were, I'd have to give up on the idea that e.g. attempted murder should be a crime.There's a difference between legal and moral concerns. Furthermore, I think attempted murder is demonstrably morally wrong under consquentialism.

[trendkill]

There's a difference between legal and moral concerns.Didn't edit quick enough. :P


Furthermore, I think attempted murder is demonstrably morally wrong under consquentialism.Demonstrate away; I can't see how that could possibly be. Especially if you talk specific incidents rather than general policy, which you certainly seem to want to do since you were so quick to jump on the 'legal vs. moral' distinction.

A man gets one chance to murder someone; he fires and misses, hitting no one. No consequences to speak of. How is that action wrong if consequences are the determining factor?

[LukeS]

I say it's ok in theory, but in practice as a way of framing reflection and reference (consequence this, consequence that...) it can be a bit annoying.

[Danhalen]

I actually just happened to be jumping across fora at the exact time you made the post. I would be more in favor of making the argument for specific cases.

Incredibly retarded scenario: you try to murder Hitler during WWII. You fail. More people are going to die on account of your failure. You are morally blameworthy.

More reasonable example: a man gets one chance to murder someone; he fires and misses, hitting no one. However, it is determined there was an attempt to commit a murder and the man is caught. The distress caused by the attempt reduces the overall happiness by way of the intended victim's family taking extra, and unnecessary, precautions for the intended victim which result in a net loss of resources. The attempted murderer is responsible for the consequences and is therefore morally blameworthy.

[epepke]

A non-moral action is an action which is morally irrelevant. Choosing to wear a red or blue shirt is a non-moral choice which leads to the action of wearing the red shirt, and it would be silly to say to there is an element of morality in choosing the color of your shirt. That's not to say I could not cook up a scenario where shirt color is morally relevant, but in most cases it is simply non-moral. Likewise, choosing to use an elevator to get from one floor to another does not entice the observer to apply moral praise or blame on the action taker. It is simply a non-moral action like walking up or down a staircase.

I agree it is a trivial matter to come up with a different example. I just do not think a consequentialist would place blame on a person who pushed an elevator button without knowing someone else had wired it to a nuclear missile.

If you're correct about what consequentialism is, and I don't know if you are, then it fails, because you have to take into count something other than consequences and in most cases related to intent to decide if something is moral or non-moral. "Choosing to use an elevator to get from one floor to another" is about intent. People push buttons because they intend to call the elevator. If that gets people off the hook, then I don't see how consequentialism can work or even be a meaningful term.

[Danhalen]

If you're correct about what consequentialism is, and I don't know if you are, then it fails, because you have to take into count something other than consequences and in most cases related to intent to decide if something is moral or non-moral. "Choosing to use an elevator to get from one floor to another" is about intent. People push buttons because they intend to call the elevator. If that gets people off the hook, then I don't see how consequentialism can work or even be a meaningful term.Actions have intentions. Moral actions are judged in terms of consequences and not intent under consequentialism. I cannot imagine that using an elevator is a moral action under most normal circumstances. So I cannot hold someone morally accountable for an action of no moral content.

[trendkill]

I actually just happened to be jumping across fora at the exact time you made the post. I would be more in favor of making the argument for specific cases.

Incredibly retarded scenario: you try to murder Hitler during WWII. You fail. More people are going to die on account of your failure. You are morally blameworthy.

More reasonable example: a man gets one chance to murder someone; he fires and misses, hitting no one. However, it is determined there was an attempt to commit a murder and the man is caught. The distress caused by the attempt reduces the overall happiness by way of the intended victim's family taking extra, and unnecessary, precautions for the intended victim which result in a net loss of resources. The attempted murderer is responsible for the consequences and is therefore morally blameworthy.I don't see how that's "more reasonable". Maybe he used a suppressor or a high-powered rifle from a great distance, and no one was ever the wiser. And anyway, in your hypothetical, it sounds like the harm comes at least as much from telling people about the murder attempt as it does from the attempt itself, if not moreso.

[Danhalen]

I don't see how that's "more reasonable". Maybe he used a suppressor or a high-powered rifle from a great distance, and no one was ever the wiser. And anyway, in your hypothetical, it sounds like the harm comes at least as much from telling people about the murder attempt as it does from the attempt itself, if not moreso.I meant it was more reasonable in comparison to my Hitler scenario.

And you are correct: an action cannot be morally blameworthy, under consequentialism, if there are no consequences. I know that's your point, but who actually cares about an action with absolutely no consequences? I certainly do not care about actions that have no consequences that I am not aware of even if they are hypothetical. I suppose we could argue the shooter has somehow diminished himself (morally) in the attempt to take another life, and that would serve as a net negative consequence.

[trendkill]

I know that's your point, but who actually cares about an action with absolutely no consequences?Lots of people; and moral principles have consequences even if the actions they apply to don't.

The point is, there are a lot of people who take the opposite view from consequentialism, and there are reasons why they do so. High-profile proponents of such views include C.S. Lewis and Orson Scott Card (whose best-known book, Ender's Game, depicting a child who commits genocide, was meant largely as an attempt to demonstrate that intentions are the sole determinant of morality). Personally I don't think I'd go that far; clearly consequences matter, so this is not my view. But I do identify with the common desire not to assign or be assigned blame for the accidental consequences of behavior. And I think that desire goes a long way towards explaining vociferous opposition to consequentialism.

[epepke]

If you're correct about what consequentialism is, and I don't know if you are, then it fails, because you have to take into count something other than consequences and in most cases related to intent to decide if something is moral or non-moral. "Choosing to use an elevator to get from one floor to another" is about intent. People push buttons because they intend to call the elevator. If that gets people off the hook, then I don't see how consequentialism can work or even be a meaningful term.Actions have intentions. Moral actions are judged in terms of consequences and not intent under consequentialism. I cannot imagine that using an elevator is a moral action under most normal circumstances. So I cannot hold someone morally accountable for an action of no moral content.

That's a statement based on an intention. The elevator button is either wired to the elevator or to the kill switch. If pushing it kills someone, then that is the consequence of the action. So, by consequentialism, that was a moral action. The only way to declare pushing a button not a moral action would be to look at the intention of the person pushing it.

[Danhalen]

Lots of people; and moral principles have consequences even if the actions they apply to don't.

The point is, there are a lot of people who take the opposite view from consequentialism, and there are reasons why they do so. High-profile proponents of such views include C.S. Lewis and Orson Scott Card (whose best-known book, Ender's Game, depicting a child who commits genocide, was meant largely as an attempt to demonstrate that intentions are the sole determinant of morality). Personally I don't think I'd go that far; clearly consequences matter, so this is not my view. But I do identify with the common desire not to assign or be assigned blame for the accidental consequences of behavior. And I think that desire goes a long way towards explaining vociferous opposition to consequentialism.I am arguing that what we may say has no consequence is actually a misunderstanding of what actually happens. I can postulate a scenario where an attempted murder takes place and there are no consequences, but I do not think a consequentialist will accept the possibility of such an event occurring. That is, there are consequences for every action and by attempting to murder another human one diminishes the value of life and that is a very real consequence of attempted murder which does give attempted murder a negative moral value.

I am not a consequentialist. I am simply trying to give the scheme a charitable defense. I would not claim to be a deontologist either, and I agree that principle and consequences both matter in determining moral worth.

[Danhalen]

That's a statement based on an intention. The elevator button is either wired to the elevator or to the kill switch. If pushing it kills someone, then that is the consequence of the action. So, by consequentialism, that was a moral action. The only way to declare pushing a button not a moral action would be to look at the intention of the person pushing it.That is not the case. The only way to determine the moral worth of a moral action is by looking at its consequence. There are actions that are non-moral actions which we do not judge as good or bad. That something has consequences does not make it a moral action. What makes an action a moral action is that there is an intention to bring about a consequence of moral significance. If this were not the case then non-moral agents would also be capable of taking moral action, and that simply does not make any sense.

[epepke]

That's a statement based on an intention. The elevator button is either wired to the elevator or to the kill switch. If pushing it kills someone, then that is the consequence of the action. So, by consequentialism, that was a moral action. The only way to declare pushing a button not a moral action would be to look at the intention of the person pushing it.That is not the case. The only way to determine the moral worth of a moral action is by looking at its consequence. There are actions that are non-moral actions which we do not judge as good or bad. That something has consequences does not make it a moral action. What makes an action a moral action is that there is an intention to bring about a consequence of moral significance. If this were not the case then non-moral agents would also be capable of taking moral action, and that simply does not make any sense.

Well, perhaps I'm not communicating properly. The question is how do you determine whether X is a moral action. The elevator button clearly shows, I think, that you get to determine that X is not a moral action by means of looking at intent. In your elevator button scenario, you get to determine that pushing an elevator button to go to a different floor is not a moral action based on intent (the bolded part).

Being able to declare something a non-moral action based on intent seems to me to be to take all the wind out of consequentialism, as I think it is being defined here. Because, let's say that for some reason, you don't like the moral conclusion that consequentialism comes up with. You can then introduce intent in an ad hoc manner and declare the action non-moral and therefore remove the consequences from the reasoning. And if you don't, it's still a decision based on intent.

Furthermore, I can't think of an easy example of an action that cannot be declared non-moral based on intent.

[Danhalen]

There is no ad hoc (or post hoc) determination of intent. What makes an action moral is that there is an ought behind it. That is, an action in which there is an intent to cause good or cause bad carries an ought with it. An ought can only be determined prior to committing to an action. You can only determine if an action is moral if there is an ought behind committing it. An action which carries no ought has no moral content. A consequentialist ought to choose the moral action that will result in the most good. It is the judgment of the consequences which determine whether or not the consequentialist chose the correct moral action.

[epepke]

There is no ad hoc (or post hoc) determination of intent. What makes an action moral is that there is an ought behind it. That is, an action in which there is an intent to cause good or cause bad carries an ought with it. An ought can only be determined prior to committing to an action.

In that case, I'm concluding that it isn't the case that I don't understand consequentialism as you define it, but rather that the concept as you define it is bogus.

Pressing an elevator button clearly has an ought. It's to get to a different floor, which is a good thing, as the pusher intends to go to a different floor to procure some benefit, which is defined as good. I push the elevator button so that I can get to the sixth floor and fuck my girlfriend. That's good. It clearly has moral intent. It's good if you ask either of us. Others may disagree.

You can only determine if an action is moral if there is an ought behind committing it. An action which carries no ought has no moral content. A consequentialist ought to choose the moral action that will result in the most good. It is the judgment of the consequences which determine whether or not the consequentialist chose the correct moral action.

No. If consequentialists are anything like you, they come up with a System and then make up bullshit and ad hoc explanations, which they only provide post hoc but nevertheless insist they aren't, so that they can still believe in the Rightness of the System.

It's still possible that you aren't describing consequentialism accurately, however, so I'll withhold judgment.

[Danhalen]

No. If consequentialists are anything like you, they come up with a System and then make up bullshit and ad hoc explanations, which they only provide post hoc but nevertheless insist they aren't, so that they can still believe in the Rightness of the System.You're a complete asshole.

Nothing I have said is ad hoc. I assumed someone engaging in a discussion involving ethics (at this depth) would have an understanding of the language involved.

I'm sorry that I have provided inadequate evidence for you to understand that pushing the call button for an elevator carries no moral worth and as such cannot be judged a good or bad thing to do. If choosing to go up or down in an elevator can be shown to be normative behavior you'd have an argument.

[epepke]

No. If consequentialists are anything like you, they come up with a System and then make up bullshit and ad hoc explanations, which they only provide post hoc but nevertheless insist they aren't, so that they can still believe in the Rightness of the System.You're a complete asshole.

Many people would agree with you, and you might be right. I might quote you on this later.

Nothing I have said is ad hoc. I assumed someone engaging in a discussion involving ethics (at this depth) would have an understanding of the language involved.

No, but neither have you explained how you determine that pushing an elevator button is a non-moral action, either by reference to intent or reference to consequences. You've only said that most people would consider it non-moral, which seems to me more an appeal to popularity than anything else.

I'm sorry that I have provided inadequate evidence for you to understand that pushing the call button for an elevator carries no moral worth and as such cannot be judged a good or bad thing to do. If choosing to go up or down in an elevator can be shown to be normative behavior you'd have an argument.

That's OK. I'm obviously to you a bit dim-witted, even though I studied user interfaces for many years. I do not have the imagination to distinguish one button from another, except in terms of placement and labeling (possibly iconic), which have everything to do with communication of purpose, possibly with cultural values controlling the interpretation (button labels are very different in the US versus Japan, for example), resulting in an interpretation, which can be evaluated by some sort of "reasonable person" standard or some other standard, and ultimately resulting in intent (that the person pushed the button with the intent of calling the elevator). None of which seems to me to have much to do with consequences.

However, I do wonder how the action of calling me a complete asshole plays out in the context of consequentialism. I would be amused to see you explain this. The consequences to me seem to be that I have decided that consequentialists not only are unable to think but are so disturbed by the possibility of thinking that they go ape-shit. If that be accurate, then it please me, because I think that coming to an accurate conclusion is morally good. Furthermore, it would mean that consequentialists are excellent toys, and I like good toys.

[Danhalen]

No. If consequentialists are anything like you, they come up with a System and then make up bullshit and ad hoc explanations, which they only provide post hoc but nevertheless insist they aren't, so that they can still believe in the Rightness of the System.You're a complete asshole.

Many people would agree with you, and you might be right. I might quote you on this later.OK.

Nothing I have said is ad hoc. I assumed someone engaging in a discussion involving ethics (at this depth) would have an understanding of the language involved.

No, but neither have you explained how you determine that pushing an elevator button is a non-moral action, either by reference to intent or reference to consequences. You've only said that most people would consider it non-moral, which seems to me more an appeal to popularity than anything else.This is not the case. I explained that an action of moral content has an ought attached to it. I admit I did not state this up front, but I assumed that in a debate on ethics the understanding of what constitutes a moral action would be understood.

If you would like my argument about how pushing an elevator call button is not a moral action restated, here it is: a moral action is defined by the existence of a "moral ought" implicit in the action. A "moral ought" is what we should do when presented with a choice of actions that have morally good and morally blameworthy values attached to the choices. So, any action which is morally good to do is what a "moral ought" implies what we should do. Now, a person desires to move from one floor to another. There is an elevator call button in front of them. There is a stairway beside them. How does either choice provide a dilemma over which action to take? There is no deliberation over what to do that would bring about the best possible outcome available to the person choosing to use the elevator. Pushing the call button is not morally blameworthy or morally praiseworthy because the action does not need to be determined by whether or not pushing the button would bring about the greatest possible consequences for the greatest amount of people. Therefore, pushing the button is a non-moral action because the only reasonably expected consequence of pushing the button is neither morally praiseworthy nor morally blameworthy.

I'm sorry that I have provided inadequate evidence for you to understand that pushing the call button for an elevator carries no moral worth and as such cannot be judged a good or bad thing to do. If choosing to go up or down in an elevator can be shown to be normative behavior you'd have an argument.

That's OK. I'm obviously to you a bit dim-witted, even though I studied user interfaces for many years. I do not have the imagination to distinguish one button from another, except in terms of placement and labeling (possibly iconic), which have everything to do with communication of purpose, possibly with cultural values controlling the interpretation (button labels are very different in the US versus Japan, for example), resulting in an interpretation, which can be evaluated by some sort of "reasonable person" standard or some other standard, and ultimately resulting in intent (that the person pushed the button with the intent of calling the elevator). None of which seems to me to have much to do with consequences.That's pretty awesome you think I believe you to be dim-witted simply because you do not have the vocabulary of ethical theory. Well, truth be told, I have no idea how intelligent or unintelligent you are. I assume you have at least a higher than average level of intelligence because your conclusion concerning consequentialism does logically follow from your faulty premises, so your argument is valid. It's just not sound.

However, I do wonder how the action of calling me a complete asshole plays out in the context of consequentialism. I would be amused to see you explain this. The consequences to me seem to be that I have decided that consequentialists not only are unable to think but are so disturbed by the possibility of thinking that they go ape-shit. If that be accurate, then it please me, because I think that coming to an accurate conclusion is morally good. Furthermore, it would mean that consequentialists are excellent toys, and I like good toys.If calling you an asshole makes more people happy than makes people angry then it was a good thing to do under a consequentialist point of view. I hope your quota of amusement has been attained for the day. As far as consequentialists going ape-shit due to the possibility of thinking, I wouldn't know if that holds true or not. I'm not a consequentialist.

Now, if you want to know why I called you an asshole I can explain that. You accused me of using ad hoc rationalization to justify my argument. I assume you accused me of this because I provided reasons for justifying my argument during the argument rather than at the outset of the argument. That is, I had to call up axioms in the course of the argument that had not already been explicitly stated. However, the only reason I had to justify my statements after I made them was because you did not know the context in which an argument of ethics occurs. The justifications for my arguments are implicit in the field of ethics. That is, a non-moral action is not relevant to the field of ethics, an ought implies the possibility of knowing there are morally praiseworthy and blameworthy consequences to an action etc. Your frustration over your ignorance of the debate caused you to act like an asshole. So I called you an asshole.

Are you happy now, asshole?

[Alethias]

If calling you an asshole makes more people happy than makes people angry then it was a good thing to do under a consequentialist point of view. I hope your quota of amusement has been attained for the day. As far as consequentialists going ape-shit due to the possibility of thinking, I wouldn't know if that holds true or not. I'm not a consequentialist?Just a comment on your interesting exchange....I probably am a consequentialist, but it is a bit of a sliding scale for me depending on the circumstance and implications of the actions. I'm probably far from a purist in my 'consequentialism'. I also suspect that my non-philosopher, normal way of using the term may be slightly different than what you are trying to express, Danhalen.

How my consequentialism would work in this specific case is: If I thought that calling epepke an asshole would cause him pain, or if I thought it would bring others associated with him pain, I wouldn't do it. I give first priority to reducing pain in my consequentialism and 2nd priority to increasing happiness. I consider the individual and I consider the group. In some circumstance the individual matters more than the group, and in others the group matters more than the individual in this decision. Generally it's weighing the impact to the group vs. the individual. If my choice won't have a big impact on the individual, but will cause pain for a whole group, I'll choose the group over the individual, and vice versa. Sometimes it is impossible to decide and I have a moral dilemma. But that is rare.

It's clear that epepke doesn't mind being called an asshole, and would probably to some extent apply the term to himself, and I don't know of any group that would be specifically impacted by this choice in a way that would cause them pain, so I have no compunctions one way or the other on it. Plain and simple.

Thinking of classical greek philosophy, I'm probably more of an epicurean than a consequentialist, but the two seem similar. Or utilitarian, maybe.

[epepke]

That's a statement based on an intention. The elevator button is either wired to the elevator or to the kill switch. If pushing it kills someone, then that is the consequence of the action. So, by consequentialism, that was a moral action. The only way to declare pushing a button not a moral action would be to look at the intention of the person pushing it.That is not the case. The only way to determine the moral worth of a moral action is by looking at its consequence. There are actions that are non-moral actions which we do not judge as good or bad.

You keep saying this.

You haven't presented any criteria for determining whether an action is a moral action or not apart from your little argumentum ad populam, let alone any that are consistent with consequentialism or, "Bob" forbid, flows from it.

[Danhalen]

That's a statement based on an intention. The elevator button is either wired to the elevator or to the kill switch. If pushing it kills someone, then that is the consequence of the action. So, by consequentialism, that was a moral action. The only way to declare pushing a button not a moral action would be to look at the intention of the person pushing it.That is not the case. The only way to determine the moral worth of a moral action is by looking at its consequence. There are actions that are non-moral actions which we do not judge as good or bad.

You keep saying this.

You haven't presented any criteria for determining whether an action is a moral action or not apart from your little argumentum ad populam, let alone any that are consistent with consequentialism or, "Bob" forbid, flows from it.I've not appealed to the masses at all. They only reference to the masses is the way consequentialism cashes out in terms of consequences for the greatest number of people. If that's what you're referring to then your problem is not with me.

I have addressed the criteria for determining if an action is a moral one:

a moral action is defined by the existence of a "moral ought" implicit in the action. A "moral ought" is what we should do when presented with a choice of actions that have morally good and morally blameworthy values attached to the choices. So, any action which is morally good to do is what a "moral ought" implies what we should do. Now, a person desires to move from one floor to another. There is an elevator call button in front of them. There is a stairway beside them. How does either choice provide a dilemma over which action to take? There is no deliberation over what to do that would bring about the best possible outcome available to the person choosing to use the elevator. Pushing the call button is not morally blameworthy or morally praiseworthy because the action does not need to be determined by whether or not pushing the button would bring about the greatest possible consequences for the greatest amount of people. Therefore, pushing the button is a non-moral action because the only reasonably expected consequence of pushing the button is neither morally praiseworthy nor morally blameworthy.In other words: a moral action is an action in which the agent committing it intends to bring about a morally praiseworthy or blameworthy response.

The condition of an action being moral or not is not determined by the system which is evaluating the moral worth of that action. It is an a priori assumption that an action being considered was committed with the intention of producing a judgment. So, it is not possible to present a set of criterion from which the definition of a moral action flows from consequentialism.

[Danhalen]

How my consequentialism would work in this specific case is: If I thought that calling epepke an asshole would cause him pain, or if I thought it would bring others associated with him pain, I wouldn't do it. I give first priority to reducing pain in my consequentialism and 2nd priority to increasing happiness. I consider the individual and I consider the group. In some circumstance the individual matters more than the group, and in others the group matters more than the individual in this decision. Generally it's weighing the impact to the group vs. the individual. If my choice won't have a big impact on the individual, but will cause pain for a whole group, I'll choose the group over the individual, and vice versa. Sometimes it is impossible to decide and I have a moral dilemma. But that is rare.That is a recognized form of consequentialism. It's negative consequentialism. I think I posted about it earlier on in this thread. It's a bit more rigorous than standard consequentialist points of view.

Thinking of classical greek philosophy, I'm probably more of an epicurean than a consequentialist, but the two seem similar. Or utilitarian, maybe.I would say epicurean thought is very similar to utilitarianism due to the pleasure principle. Since you are considering the consequences of a given action on a broader scale than is necessary for epicureans, I would say you are firmly in the realm of consequentialism (but the two schools of ethics are not mutually exclusive).