DAY 71 - Ethical Normative Systems cont'd. CONSEQUENTIALIST Ethics

Consequentialist Ethics

The theory of normative ethics takes the approach that what makes an act good is not the doer (virtue) or the act itself (duty), but the outcome of the act. The right act is one that leads to good outcomes. This is known as consequentialism, as it is concerned only with the consequences of our actions as a guide to determining how we should act. Of course, there are many varieties of consequentialism.

1. Rational Self-Interest

This ethical theory (also called Ethical Egoism), states that one should act in a manner that will benefit oneself:

"Good things are those that are good for me. Of course, I must use my sense of reason to determine what is in my best interest, and I may conclude that what is best in the long run is not what is best in the short run."

For example, it might be an advantage for me to lie to you right now, as it would give me an advantage over you or assist me in avoiding bad outcomes. But in the long run, I should be smart enough to know that eventually the habit of telling lies will catch up with me, and I would lose the trust of those close to me, and my life would be friendless, cold, and empty. Thus, it is not in my best interest to tell lies.

Ayn Rand, smoking a cigarette and considering what is best for her.

One of the chief proponents of rational self-interest was 20th century American Ayn Rand. She wrote several best-selling novels, such as Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead, as well as works on philosophy, the most notable being The Virtue of Selfishness. She called her theory of rational self-interest Objectivism (not to be confused with the Objectivism associated with Realism).

Objectivist ethics argues that people are their own ends, their own highest purposes. Thus, doing what is best for you is good, and only each of us can decide for ourselves what this is. Central to Rand's theory is reason, which she views as a necessity to understanding our best interest. Other virtues include justice, honesty, and integrity.

Rand tended towards supporting an economic system of laissez-faire capitalism, in which individuals competed in a virtually uncontrolled marketplace. She saw government regulation as a great evil, and the heroes of Rand's novels were independent-minded rebels who struggled to do what was right in the face of opposition from narrow-mindedness and less talented people. She viewed relations between individuals on the basis of an exchange, or trade, which was in the best interests of each, a sort of reciprocity of mutual self-interest.

Utilitarianism

Utility refers to how useful something is. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that evaluates actions on how useful they are to bringing about good, which is defined by utilitarians in terms of pleasure or happiness. The basic tenet of Utilitarianism is that a system of ethics should bring about "the greatest good for the greatest number". Actions that lead to this are good; actions that take away from the general happiness are bad.

An early founder of utilitarianism was Jeremy Bentham, an 18^th century English philosopher. Bentham was a materialist and an empiricist, strongly influenced by Hume (who actually coined the term utilitarian). Bentham did not believe in things that could not be physically proven. He argued that human nature had made pleasure and pain our standard by which to measure good and bad: pleasure is good and pain is bad. Right actions are those that increase pleasure and wrong actions are those that create pain. This does not mean that my happiness alone determines what is right and wrong, but that I must consider the general happiness, as my interests are bound inextricably with everyone else's. Thus, the test of right and wrong actions is whether they promote everyone's happiness, not just mine.

Bentham developed what is called the Hedonic Calculus. This rated all actions by how "happy-making" they were. To calculate the rightness or wrongness of a particular action, you need only do the math, weighing out the pleasure and pain it would create according to criteria such as how intense the pleasure or pain would be, how long it would last, and how many other people would be affected by it. This system is known as Act Utilitarianism, since it looks at the effects of each action taken on its own.

For an example of the Hedonic Calculus in action, click here:

A major flaw with Bentham's simple cost/benefit approach is that it takes a quantitative, mathematical view of morality: a small number of people suffering is acceptable if many people are made happy. It can become a moral "tyranny of the majority". For example, it would be morally right under Bentham's system to have a small number of people living in terrible conditions, working to produce cheap clothing that would bring a reasonable amount of pleasure to many people. According to the Hedonic Calculus, this would be okay. Torture, slavery, and injustice of all varieties could be viewed as morally acceptable, so long as the numbers crunched correctly.

John Stuart Mill, Bentham's godson, created a more refined version of the theory, described in his 1863 book, Utilitarianism. Called Rule Utilitarianism, it corrected two major flaws with Bentham's simple Hedonic Calculus approach. Firstly, it did not look at acts in isolation, but considered general rules of moral behaviour. For example, Mill's system is not concerned with a question like "is stealing the car wrong?", but with more general principles such as "is stealing wrong?" If it can be shown that stealing, in general, tends to decrease the general level of happiness, then stealing is wrong in general and in particular. Once proven, the rules are binding.

Secondly, Bentham's system did not distinguish between different varieties of pleasures. He was noted for saying that "pushpin is as good as opera". (Pushpin is a simple child's game.) Bentham implied that there were no differences between the qualities of different experiences. But is this accurate? For example, my grief over the death of a pet fish may be extreme, but is it in the same league as your grief over the death of a parent? Similarly, a long, dull pleasure could be viewed as more desirable than a brief intense pleasure. Mill disagreed that all pleasures are equal: there are 'simpler pleasures' and 'higher pleasures'. Simple pleasures tended to be sensual, while higher tended to be mental, requiring a greater education and refinement to appreciate. As Mill argued:

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied, than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides."

Jeremy Bentham, Practical Ethics, edited by Peter Singer. Cambridge University Press (1993), p. 108.

According to Mill, pushpin is not as good as opera and human pleasures are superior to porcine.

Utilitiarian views are widespread and common today. While most modern utilitarians have moved away from using pleasure alone as a standard to measure right and wrong acts, the idea of minimizing harm and maximizing benefit as a guiding principle is strong.

Utilitarianism's great strengths are its flexibility, its decision-making process, and its focus on outcomes. Its great criticism is that just because something makes many people happy, it isn't necessarily right.

Existentialist Ethics

Existentialism argues that there is no objective meaning in the world, that the world is essentially void of meaning, and that we must create the meaning of all things, subjectively, as we live. Existentialists are thus faced with moral nihilism: if I alone decide the value of my actions, how is an existential morality possible, as it would have no reference to other humans?

Jean-Paul Sartre, the leading figure of the existential movement, argued that an existential morality is possible, based on the notion of radical freedom. This is the idea that each of us is responsible for all our actions, a responsibility we cannot avoid. To avoid this responsibility is called "bad faith", pretending that we are not responsible for our decisions. For example, to argue, "I had to do something because it was expected of me. I was forced into it" is bad faith because the decision to act was made and responsibility must be taken for the actions.

Jean Paul Sartre,
taking responsibility
for his own actions.

How then do I decide what to do? I make it up. Sartre uses the example of a young man, a former student of his, in occupied France during the Second World War. His older brother was killed by the German invasion; he was all his mother had left. He wanted to avenge his brother, to leave France and join the Free French forces in England, but he knows it would break his mother's heart if he did. What should he do? How should he decide? Sartre advised him to follow his instincts and do what his heart told him. However, one must be careful to follow your authentic instincts and avoid choices based on what you think others might want you to do. If you are true to yourself, you are acting rightly.

This idea is similar to the idea of Intuitionism, with the difference that existentialism is based on the individual, not on all people. Actions that are right for you may not be right for me, and my moral compass may point in different directions than yours.