Normed Consequentialism

From guest blogger, Charlie.

Consequentialism is defined as the individual should do the most good they can, that it is immoral not to do so.  Proposition Q is defined that if a population has a choice that results in the same number of 
human lives, there is a moral obligation to choose the better outcome.  Simply put, in all cases that Proposition Q applies Consequentialism applies and therefore if we reject Proposition Q, doesn't this 
completely undermine Consequentialism because it is broader?

If we say yes, then all the Consequentialist arguments that we have heard up to this point are all unsound.  That any argument with a tinge of action for the greater good in whatever fashion is rejected.  That's a lot.  This includes arguments from Singer, Norcross, Southan, La Follette, Pojman, Brennan, and Allhoff. This refutation of so much work is a bit extreme, the desire to do so indicates that Consequentialism needs to be revisited.

The key issue here is that while Consequentialism asserts the existence of a moral order, it is determinable if action one is morally superior than action two, it does not assert the existence of a moral metric, that one can determine a number, call it moral degree, that corresponds 
to how good an action is.  I think if Consequentialism is to survive, then this notion of a moral metric must be defined in some manner.  If it is defined then additionally one needs to determine a constant M, the boundary of moral permissibly.  Given a set of moral actions with a maximum difference in moral degree less than M, then these actions would all be considered morally equivalent.   This metric and boundary would remove the problem of Consequential Fidelity, the notion that 
Consequentialism demands the best good action in even the most comparable cases.

To give an example, let us consider the case of holding a door for someone else or not.  Under Vanilla Consequentialism, in most cases it is morally wrong for you not to hold the door for another.  You have already expended the effort to open the door, if the other is in sufficient proximity, the total amount of effort expended is less if you hold the door than if the other has to reopen it.  Therefore the choice to hold the door is slightly better than not doing so, and is therefore the good choice, the morally obligatory choice.  On the other hand with Normed Consequentialism, it wouldn't matter.  Sure one action is slightly superior but the difference, it is assumed, would be negligible, that is less than M.  Since it is ridiculous to apply morality to such trivial actions it seems that Normed Consequentialism is better in this case and in general.

Consequentialism and Predicting Consequences

From guest blogger, Jane. 

Classical consequentialism states that acts are morally right just because they maximize the amount of goodness in the world. In addition, act utilitarianism, the most prominent version of consequentialism, claims that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its actual results, rather than its expected results. However, I intend to provide my own opinions to object the idea of act utilitarianism.

No one can predict the actual result precisely. In other words, we cannot take everything under our control, and there must be some randomness involved in the action or process. If an action is utterly determined by its result, then the result is not always as accurate as the expectation. Take basketball game as an example. Basketball fans believe that a player has a “better chance” of making a shot after having just made his last two or three shots than he does after having just missed his last two or three shots. In this case, if it is a fair game, not a single player can say if the player is going to make the shot or not. The result of the game is determined by players’ skills plus some degree of luck. Moreover, we tend to underappreciate how much randomness could impact outcomes. I use this example to demonstrate how randomness can affect the result of an action, and act utilitarianism, which is solely based on the result, is not reliable enough to determine whether the action is right or wrong.

Utilitarianism and the Future of the Human Race

From guest blogger, Michael.

The mantra of utilitarianism is to maximize total happiness.  Since the quantity they are hoping to maximize is aggregate it does not depend on any specific time frame.  Meaning, when the utilitarian is deciding what actions they ought to take, they need to consider not only those who are alive, but also everyone who may yet be born.

Since more people being born leads to more happiness being contributed, the longevity of the human race is paramount to the utilitarian.  The scientific community has predicted many global extinction event may loom either in the near or far future for humanity.  Managing to overcome or avoid problems such as global warming, nuclear war, or even the death of our own sun would allow the human race to live on for countless more generations, and thus creating more happiness than could possibly be produced by just the population living today. 

So I guess the point I’m making is that the utilitarian ought to consider how their decisions will affect the longevity of the human race more critically than how they will affect people’s current level of happiness.

Time-sensitivity and Consequentialism

From guest blogger, Aria.

From a utilitarian perspective, pleasure is the one and only intrinsic good. It states that the morally right action is the one that maximizes the pleasure to pain ratio. Thus, in order to make a decision about what we ought to do in a given situation, we need to calculate the total resultant pain and pleasure. The utilitarian believes that regardless of how difficult it is to predict the net amount of happiness/pleasure, we are morally required to do the best we can, give what we know to predict the consequences.

In my opinion, this view does not fully account for the complexity of time-sensitive dilemmas one could face, when one only has a few seconds to do the calculations and make a decision. To me, the limitation of time and the psychological pressure and strain it could result, greatly impairs the ability of the individual to do calculations and come up with a decision. How are we supposed to calculate the total amount of pain and pleasure and make a decision given the limited time and the complexity of the situation at hand? Consider the trolley problem when you have 3 seconds to decide whether you pull the lever to save the two individuals on the main track but kill the individual tied to the side track, or not pull the lever and let the two individuals tied to the main track die (there could also be a question about whether the utilitarian discriminates between killing vs. letting die). How are you supposed to have time to think about the issue at hand, make calculations, and decide what you ought to do to maximize the net pleasure or happiness in the 3 seconds you have? To me, the utilitarian’s claim that we ought to do the best we can, given what we know is not sufficient in such a complex situation. It seems to me that the utilitarian fails to consider the complexity and time sensitivity of real life dilemmas and does not provide appropriate guidance in such situations.

Furthermore, the utilitarian claims that the one and only intrinsic good is pleasure. But Why? She does not explain why pleasure is the only intrinsic good and why, for instance, knowledge/wisdom is not. I believe that the burden of proof is on the utilitarian to explain this.

Consider the trolley problem again but this time with only one individual tied to each track. Assume that you know that the two individuals are similar in every regard (e.g. they are clones of one another) and we have calculated the net amount of pleasure each of the individuals contributes to the world to be exactly the same. What are we supposed to do in this situation? Who are we supposed to save? Are you supposed to do nothing and let the person on the track die? Are you supposed to divert the track? The utilitarian seems to fail to give us an answer in this situation.

Now, consider a scenario when both of the people tied on the tracks (the main and side tracks) are similar in every regard, except that one individual is more attractive than the other. According to the principle of utility, you are supposed to save the more attractive individual since people get more pleasure just by looking at the person as they pass by her on the street. But is that the right thing to do? Aren’t looks the most superficial criteria to use to base our moral decisions on? To me, this does not seem like the moral thing to do. Thus, sometimes acts that seem immoral are morally required by the utilitarian principles.

What do you think the utilitarian’s response would be to these objections?

Impartiality and Consequentialism

From guest blogger, Alexander.

After learning about multiple theories to address and combat moral issues, I feel that consequentialism is not an accurate measurement of morality. On paper, the “maximization of total aggregate happiness” sounds great. However, it ends up screwing the non-happy portion. The first idea that I do not agree with is impartiality, that all beings are counted as equal. As great as this sounds, a lizard’s happiness is nowhere near equal to a human being’s. A consequentialist might say that happiness is a measure that should account for all beings on earth, but I don’t think that’s remotely true. For this theory, I believe human happiness should be above all else. Obviously, there would need to be exceptions to immoral cases like animal cruelty for this addition to benefit the theory. But, I think, with exceptions, human happiness is the most important. The second problem that I have with consequentialism is the inability to accurately assess immoral situations. The first example coming to mind is slavery. One largely populated group is happy, while a minority is very unhappy. In this case, it is morally acceptable. Slavery sets an example to several other immoral situations, like torture, kidnapping, or murder. If one party has more happiness than the unhappiness of the other, than it is moral. Which, obviously, is not the case. I believe the cause of pain or hurt should be counted in more than the “happiness” in the situation. In my opinion, pain is much more significant than happiness, and it takes a bigger toll on you. The goal should be to attempt to minimize or eliminate pain while still maintaining the highest possible amount of happiness. 

Consequentialism and Deontology and Long-term Results

From guest blogger, Hannah.

It is interesting to compare the consequentialist emphasis on long-term results and the deontologist’s emphasis on intention and motive. This contradiction is especially vital when trying to define someone’s moral character. Consequentialists believe that acts are moral because they are maximizing the goodness in the world by choosing the optimific action, one that results in the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks. However, it is impossible to know the ultimate results an action will lead to years in the future and deontology views the intentions of the action the most important to define morality. For example, someone who is deciding whether or not to have an abortion can’t know if their child will find the cure for cancer or become the next world dictator, she only knows her current situation. For this reason, consequentialist decisions require a lot of speculation. In this example, if the woman didn’t have the abortion and her child found the cure for cancer, she would be told her decision was moral because it had a great benefit to society. However, if she didn’t have the abortion because she felt her current living situation would not be healthy to raise a child in, that would be moral according to deontology because she has the right intentions.

Another example that assumes less speculation is regarding drone strikes of terrorist bases. Many drone strikes have ended with innocent civilians being killed, leading drone strikes to be a controversial decision for a government to make. Consequentialists would take an interesting approach. They feel that although some innocent civilians are being killed, these strikes also kill terrorists who would have killed more people than those killed in the drone strike. These terrorists who died would have spread their mantras and encouraged other people to kill in the name of their organization. For this reason, the decision to have drone strikes would be the optimific one because the few deaths are not as bad as many. On the other hand, deontologist’s believe that the intentions are immoral because they are using the civilians as a mere means to kill terrorists, rather than treating them as an end and a part of humanity.

I personally believe that a person’s intentions should be the most important factor of their moral character. It does not make sense for someone with bad intentions to be considered moral because of “moral luck” or someone with good intentions to be considered immoral because of “moral bad luck”. What do you think? Do you have any other examples of times where it makes sense to look at intentions over future consequences or vice-versa? 

Consequentialism and Aggregate Happiness Calculation

From guest blogger, Jimmy.

When faced with the problem of helping an old lady cross the street, and she gets hit by a car, one may feel blameworthy. But what I want to examine is, was it the best thing to do, factoring aggregate happiness and all?  
       
I believe it still is the best thing to do, instead of just standing there, not helping while fully capable.  It's true, you have to do the best you can do, and one didn't know a car would come.  It would be foolhardy to quickly run across the street and see if any cars are coming. One should be brave and trust that cars may stop when supposed to.  Furthermore,  that being able to trust, is an action onto itself. That trusting is taking into account the whole moral community-the lady, cars, other pedestrians, into account.  Now one is taking into account the aggregate happiness for everyone,  not just the old lady. Yea, its a terrible thing that happened,  but what if the lady got hit without you there? Then that would be even more sad.  So at least pedestrians and cars will look around and see that a positive action-helping the old lady-was preformed, and they will see how kind you were.

Consequentialism and the "Too Demanding" Objection

From guest blogger, Bryan.

We talked about the consequentialism few days ago in class,  and one of most well-know theories is Mill’s utilitarianism. The theory is defined as an action that is morally correct if and only if, the results of the action produces most net pleasure among all the available actions for everyone who can be effected by the action. My first expression to theory is positive and relevant as it reflects my thoughts while making decisions; however, here are my few objections after thinking the principle deeply.

One of controversial objections for utilitarianism is that it is too demanding.  According to utilitarianism, the right action is to maximize the net overall happiness, then any actions that does not achieve this idea is impermissible action.  For instance, if a doctor can save a person from dying, and the doctor also can use the person’s organs to save ten other people who are waiting for organs if the person dies. If utilitarianism is true, the doctor is moral correct to choose to do nothing and let him dies so the doctor can save more people because the amount of happiness of ten families are much greater than the pain in one family.   Moreover, we can also use donation to charity as an example to demonstrate the refutation.   If people all donate money to charity, then the net happiness will be greater than not doing it.  Does this mean people who do not do this behavior is moral corrupted?

Another objection regarding of utilitarianism is that it is too simple.  Utilitarianism states that happiness is the only intrinsic good of determining correct actions; however, we have no clue about who decides happiness.   Additionally, human is driven by many other traits such as integrity, justice, and kindness for our future generation. The theory to me lacks enough considerations.  

A Circumstance of Ethical Euthanasia

From gust blogger, Bethany.

Most of us who have owned an animal know the pain of watching our beloved pet suffer. This suffering may come from a freak accident, from a disease, or from the physical deterioration that old age causes. When we believe that curing our pet is a lost cause, we often turn to euthanasia in order to end his or her misery. However, is euthanasia the most moral option in these situations? Do we always euthanize our animals for the right reasons? Sometimes it is difficult to assess whether the right decision has been made. For eleven years, my mother and I have been fostering dogs of all shapes, sizes, breeds, ages, backgrounds, and health levels for a Milwaukee dog rescue. Over two hundred and sixty dogs have passed through our doors, and despite our best efforts to recuperate sick dogs, we have lost some along the way.

About two weeks ago, my mother made the difficult decision to euthanize one of the most recent members of our pack—a six-month old puppy named Duncan. We rescued Duncan when he was two months old from a shelter in Alabama, after a police officer found him trapped between a fence and a garage, nearly dead. His litter had been abandoned, and all of the puppies but Duncan and his brother Connor had died of starvation. In the beginning, Duncan could walk and play with the other dogs at our house. However, it soon became apparent that something was very wrong with him—as he grew older, Duncan began losing the ability to walk for more than a couple of steps; he could not support his own weight, making it impossible for him to stand long enough to walk over to the food and water bowls or even to use the bathroom anywhere but on himself. Being the saint that she is, my mother would clean him off two or three times per day, bring him food and water, carry him outside for fresh air, make sure that he was laying on soft, clean bedding, and sacrifice her own time and money to take him to vet appointments and water therapy. Ultimately, veterinarians determined that Duncan suffered from a degenerating neurological condition, and my mother and the director of the rescue agreed that it would be best to euthanize him.

At first, I struggled with this. How could my mother actually come to the conclusion that Duncan must be euthanized—killed—when maybe there was a family somewhere out there that would happily welcome him and give him the love that he deserved? Looking back, I suppose that the optimist in me was in denial that killing this poor, helpless, innocent puppy was the most moral course of action. Part of me still is. However, looking at the situation through the lenses of different moral theories has helped me suppress my immediate emotional responses and objections.

Consequentialism, which indicates that a particular action is optimific, and thus moral, if it maximizes total aggregate happiness points towards the verdict that euthanizing Duncan was the correct course of action. Duncan was ultimately saved from any further pain or discomfort, so he would not suffer any more in this life. Putting Duncan to sleep additionally ended up saving the rescue and my mother a great amount of money because there would be no more bills from Duncan’s future water therapy sessions and medical tests/procedures. This money that the rescue saved would be put towards saving other animals in need, thus increasing their overall happiness. The happiness of any family that would have potentially adopted Duncan was also preserved because the members of the family would be saved from feeling the pain of watching their dog deteriorate. Another positive implication is that my mother is now free from the commitment of spending so much time and energy caring for a special needs dog, and that energy can now be put towards caring for her own three dogs and numerous other foster dogs. The morality of this decision could be called into question, especially if the decrease in happiness that we perceived in Duncan due to his condition was incorrect. It is also possible that a wonderful family in search of a special needs dog would have adopted him and enjoyed every moment caring for him. It is difficult to consider this option, however, because finding such a family seems like a shot in the dark. Is keeping Duncan alive in hopes of finding him the perfect forever home worth the risk of causing a prolonged decrease in the happiness of my mother, the rescue, and other dogs that the rescue could have helped? It is impossible to correctly predict what the results of either course of action would be, but the most controllable action with a fairly certain optimific outcome is to euthanize Duncan.

Despite the fact that looking at this situation through the lens of Consequentialism indicates that euthanizing Duncan is the most moral action, I have difficulty accepting the fact that killing him was completely ethical. I have never believed that the means always justify the ends, so I think that it is important to consider other moral theories. Deontology places an emphasis on motives and intentions, stating that an action is moral if 1) the maxim is universalizable, and 2) if one treats humanity—whether oneself or others—as an end in themselves and never simply a means. Considering the first gloss, we can create the maxim that a chronically ill puppy is euthanized. When we universalize this maxim, then all people will euthanize their chronically ill puppies. Since no inconsistencies or contradictions arise from this statement, Kantian thought suggests that euthanizing Duncan was morally permissible. Even the second Gloss comes to this conclusion, since Duncan was an animal that was incapable of rationality or autonomy. In order for my mother to protect her own humanity and dignity by putting her emotions aside, she followed her duty to protect Duncan and decide what was best for him. On the other hand, could it be argued that euthanizing Duncan was immoral because the action was done with the intention of avoiding further responsibility to care for him and to save money? Was euthanasia simply a convenient way of dealing with the problem? While I would like to dismiss this notion, I find it difficult to disagree with it completely. I know for a fact that Duncan was becoming a burden to both my mother and the rescue. Does killing him for that reason make the act automatically immoral? It is obvious that this matter cannot be seen in black and white, because while Duncan may have been put down partially because he was a burden, he could also have been put down partially because it was the best way for my mother to fulfill her duty to herself by protecting him.

I would like to look at the situation from one final, more holistic perspective, since I personally have always relied on my innate feelings to gauge right versus wrong. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics indicates that humans should simply be virtuous, and that will in turn yield moral behavior. In the case of Duncan, we can ask ourselves: How can I be kind? How can I be brave? How can I be wise? It seems that we must rely on our natural inclinations, and I believe that many people would agree by saying that putting Duncan out of his presumed misery through euthanasia would be a kind thing to do. As the person making that decision, we would need both the bravery and wisdom not to do what is easy, but what is right. Of course, this raises the very important question of what constitutes kindness in this situation. Is it kind to eradicate a creature’s pain (pain that we assume exists) by killing the creature? Or is it more kind to save a creature’s life and to do everything in our power to make sure that its life is as good as it can be? What if Duncan was not in pain—what if he was happy and simply needed us to be more patient towards him and his condition?

In class today, we addressed the common conception that different theories about morality cannot be used in concurrence because they contradict one another; for instance, some place an emphasis on consequences, while others emphasize intentions, while still others emphasize virtues. However…what about when the intention is to have good consequences? What about when these lines of thought about morality come to the same conclusion? Could we almost say that this is an objective moral truth? Does it increase the value of the final moral claim? In the case of euthanizing Duncan, Consequentialism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics all seem to support the claim that euthanasia was the moral course of action. It is morally permissible to take the life of a “lower” creature when it is suffering. While Duncan’s fate is still difficult to swallow, I have to believe that it was the ethical, moral, kind thing to do.