There is, in modern society, a general trend of antipathy regarding morality, leading to an acceptance of unconsidered egocentric utilitarianism. This essay sets out to combat blind consequentialism in its most esteemed form, in favour of a considered approach, regardless of perspective. The outcome is a brief analysis of the concepts and arguments in one of the most prominent debates in ethics, providing a concise evaluation of the key tenets of both sides.
Table of Contents
3 - Abstract
4 - Utilitarianism (for)
7 - Situation Ethics (for)
9 - sectionary conclusion (for)
10 - Theological Voluntarism (against)
12 - Kantianism (against)
15 - Conclusion (for vs against)
Objectives and Topics
This work provides a critical analysis of consequentialism by examining its fundamental moral assertions, exploring representative theories such as utilitarianism and situation ethics, and contrasting them with opposing deontological perspectives like theological voluntarism and Kantianism to determine the theory's overall effectiveness.
- Theoretical foundations of consequentialist moral philosophy
- Comparative analysis of act and rule utilitarianism
- Evaluation of situation ethics and the role of 'agape'
- Deontological critiques from theological and Kantian perspectives
- Synthesis of ends, means, and the nature of moral determinants
Excerpt from the Book
Supporting arguments, Part i- Utilitarianism
Arguably the most widely-held Consequentialist theory in the modern world is utilitarianism, this rests on the assumption that the good action is that which produces the most happiness for the most people. Utilitarianism is so-called because it relies on the ‘principle of social utility’ (An enquiry into the principles of morals, David Hume, 1777), whereby the action that produces the “greatest happiness for the greatest number” is the morally correct one to take. This can be known as a ‘hedonistic’ theory as it posits happiness (synonymous with pleasure) as the single most important product of any action and the end product by which goodness is determined. Utilitarianism is the view held by more people than, arguably, know what it is, this theory seems to be the consensus among peoples regardless of their awareness of its subtleties, implying a level of agree-ability or perhaps even natural occurrence.
‘Classical utilitarianism’ (The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Julia Driver, 2009) is the position held by those who follow the first formal proposal of utilitarianism, by Jeremy Bentham in The principles of morals and legislation in 1781. This is the quintessential utilitarian theory and relies on ‘moral economics’, whereby the positive and negative outcomes may be used to determine the overall NET morality of any decision, effectively making utilitarianism a quantifiable view of pleasures against pain. This theory can be expressed in the calculation [pleasures – pains = moral value]. Bentham’s position is completely quantitative in that it asserts that whatever benefits the majority is necessarily good as this satiates the larger portion of society’s desires, this means that any positive outcome will justify the means by which it is achieved. Bentham developed a system of classifications and calculations to describe the process of determining moral value, including the ‘hedonic calculus’ (fig. 1) – a series of considerations that determine whether an act will produce happiness/pleasure – and a categorisation of accountable pains and pleasures. Overall, Bentham noted 30 pains and pleasures that may be drawn from a situation and so attempted to place utilitarianism on a quantitative, empirical and quantitatively-motivated moral foundation.
Summary of Chapters
3 - Abstract: Provides an overview of consequentialism as an ethical theory and outlines the paper's focus on analyzing fundamental moral assertions.
4 - Utilitarianism (for): Examines the development of act and rule utilitarianism and evaluates the hedonistic calculation of moral value.
7 - Situation Ethics (for): Analyzes Joseph Fletcher's religiously-motivated theory, focusing on the concept of 'agape' love as the primary determinant of moral action.
9 - sectionary conclusion (for): Summarizes the initial findings regarding the commonality of consequentialist logic in daily life and its theoretical shortcomings.
10 - Theological Voluntarism (against): Discusses divine command theory as a deontological opposition to consequentialism, centered on obedience to God's will.
12 - Kantianism (against): Investigates Kant's deontological framework, specifically the categorical imperative and the duty to treat individuals as ends in themselves.
15 - Conclusion (for vs against): Synthesizes the conflicts between the analyzed theories and addresses the fundamental divide between consequentialist ends and deontological means.
Keywords
Consequentialism, Utilitarianism, Situation Ethics, Deontology, Theological Voluntarism, Kantianism, Hedonism, Agape, Moral Economics, Categorical Imperative, Moral Luck, Divine Command Theory, Ethics, Philosophy, Moral Value
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
This work provides a critical analysis of consequentialism, examining its core arguments and testing its effectiveness as an ethical theory by contrasting it with major opposing frameworks.
What are the central themes discussed in the text?
The central themes include the nature of moral value, the debate between consequentialist outcomes and deontological rules, the subjectivity of moral determinants, and the role of human reason versus faith.
What is the core research question?
The primary research question is: "Is Consequentialism an effective ethical theory?"
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses meta-ethical analysis, relying on logical argumentation and a review of fundamental moral assertions derived from philosophical literature.
What subjects are covered in the main body?
The main body treats utilitarianism, situation ethics, theological voluntarism, and Kantian ethics, providing a structured comparison of their respective strengths and weaknesses.
How would you characterize the primary keywords?
The keywords are centered on key normative ethical frameworks, their proponents, and the core philosophical concepts used to challenge or support them.
How does Bentham's hedonic calculus attempt to solve moral ambiguity?
Bentham attempts to create a quantitative, empirical foundation for morality by categorizing and calculating 30 different types of pains and pleasures to reach a net moral value.
What constitutes the core critique of situation ethics?
The main critique is that situation ethics relies on the subjective and unstable concept of love, which lacks clear measurement and could potentially justify immoral behavior if the individual perceives their intent as "loving."
What is the "Euthyphro dilemma" in relation to theological voluntarism?
The dilemma challenges the logic of divine command theory by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or if God commands it because it is inherently good, creating a cycle of circular reasoning.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Liam Rodgers (Autor:in), 2012, On Consequentialism, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/200425
