On our definition of consequentialism, only the direct view is a genuinely consequentialist position, and rule utilitarianism/consequentialism, despite the name, is not a type of consequentialism. ![]() Since an action’s morality depends on its conformity to a rule, rather than its own consequences, rule utilitarianism is a form of indirect consequentialism. According to rule utilitarianism, what makes an action right is that it conforms to the set of rules that would have the best utilitarian consequences if they were generally accepted or followed. The most famous indirect view is known as rule utilitarianism (or rule consequentialism more generally). Act utilitarianism (or act consequentialism more generally) directly assesses the moral rightness of actions.Īccording to indirect consequentialism, we should instead evaluate the moral status of an action indirectly, based on its relationship to something else (such as a rule), which is in turn assessed in terms of its consequences. On this view, to determine the right action from among a set of feasible options, we should directly evaluate which option has the best consequences. When offering a consequentialist account of rightness, a common distinction in the philosophical literature is between two views called direct consequentialism and indirect consequentialism.Īccording to the direct view, the rightness of an action (or rule, policy, etc.) depends only on its consequences. Direct and Indirect Consequentialism: Explaining The Difference between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism Much of consequentialism’s appeal may stem from the conviction that making the world a better place is simply more important than any of these competing moral goals. And according to virtue ethics, morality is fundamentally about having a virtuous character. For example, according to deontology, morality is about following a system of rules, like “Do Not Lie” or “Do Not Steal”. The ends in this case justify the means.Ĭonsequentialism’s rivals offer alternative accounts of what one morally ought to do that depend on features other than the value of the resulting outcome. ![]() In exceptional cases, breaking a promise could be the morally best action available, such as when it is necessary to save a life. However, breaking a promise is not considered wrong in itself. ![]() For instance, when breaking a promise has bad consequences-as it usually does-consequentialists oppose it. Thus, to evaluate whether to perform an action, we should look at its overall consequences, rather than any of its other features (such as the type of action that it is). On this view, bringing about good outcomes is all that ultimately matters, from a moral perspective. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, which we define as follows:Ĭonsequentialism is the view that one ought always to promote good outcomes. The Four Elements of Utilitarianism Consequentialism Sometimes philosophers talk about “welfare” or “utility” rather than “well-being”, but they typically mean the same thing. Utilitarianism is the view that one ought always to promote overall well-being. Utilitarian theories share four defining elements:Ĭombining these, we can define utilitarianism as follows: There are several further important distinctions between utilitarian theories: we can distinguish scalar from maximizing or satisficing utilitarianism, expectational from objective utilitarianism, multi-level from single-level utilitarianism, and global from hybrid utilitarianism. Classical utilitarianism is distinctive because it accepts two additional elements: first, hedonism as a theory of well-being second, the total view of population ethics. Utilitarian theories share four elements: consequentialism, welfarism, impartiality, and aggregationism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |