Aspects of moral actions that are relevant when judging its quality (moral considerations):
its consequences
the rule that it follows/violates
An action is considered good when it follows a good rule—which can be understood as a rule that conforms to the will of God, respects moral rights, or conforms to the natural order of things—or it does not conform to a bad rule
It claims that the consequences of an action are the parts that ultimately matter when evaluating its quality
The only consequences that matter in this ethical theory are the ones that involve an intrinsic good
Intrinsic and instrumental good
Intrinsic good, also known as inherent good and unconditional good refers to the good that is good in itself or is desirable for its own sake (e.g. happiness)
On the other hand, instrumental good, also known as derived good and conditional good, pertains to the good that is desired for the sake of something else (e.g. things desired to be happy)
Consequentialism asserts that everyone should act in a way that results to the greatest amount of intrinsic good.
Between two conflicting actions that both result into a good consequence(s), the act with the greater good consequence(s) is the morally good act
Between two actions that both result into a bad consequence(s), the one with the lesser bad consequence(s) is the morally good act
Between two actions that both result into a combination of a good and bad consequence(s), the act with the greater net total of good consequence(s) is the morally good act
To get the aggregate good consequences of each alternative action, we get all the consequences of an action, and then subtract it by the total bad consequences
Hedonistic consequentialism or hedonism believes that happiness is the only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic bad.
The term hedonism was derived from the Greek word hedone, which meant pleasure
Hedonists justify their claim by stating that we cannot escape pain and pleasure, and even if we try to, we will eventually end up using them for our standards
An argument against this is the mere fact that it is meaningful to ask “is pleasure good?”—if pleasure and good were equal then it would be meaningless to ask this question since it would be the same as asking “is pleasure pleasure“. This argument is referred to as the open-question argument by G.E. Moore
Another argument states that an action that provides pleasure may not necessarily be desirable. This implies that it is not an inherent good because there are certain cases where it is not desirable.
The first view rejects the notion that pleasure is an intrinsic good. This version is referred to as exclusive non-hedonism. This type of non-hedonism believes that intrinsic good is power, desire/satisfaction, and etc.
The second view rejects the idea that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. This version is referred to as inclusive non-hedonism. This type of non-hedonism believes that there are other intrinsic goods (e.g., knowledge, power, beauty, freedom, desire-satisfaction, healthy relationships, and etc.)
Pleasures are classified as either active—characterized by the gratification of a specific desire—or passive—characterized by the absence of pain
Cyrenaicism (active hedonism) - an ethical theory by Aristippus focusing on maximizing short but intense pleasure of an agent (sensory pleasures).
Life’s uncertainty and shortness gives rise to the sense of urgency to exhaust all pleasures one can while they are still alive. Nevertheless, Aristippus also says that we should be in control of our pleasures and not the other way around (because excess pleasure leads to pain and the limitation of desires is a condition of their satisfaction).
Epicureanism (passive hedonism) - an ethical theory by Epicurus focusing on maximizing long but less intense pleasure of an agent. It promotes freedom from pain in the mind and body.
Epicurus states that it is much more difficult to sustain the gratification of desires than the absence of pain.
He also states that it is useless to worry about divine future punishment because we will never know how God(s) thinks anyway.
He says that we should not worry about death because we still exists and we no longer exist when we die (meaning that it does not concern both the living and the dead)
Friedrich Nietzsche ethical theory - an exclusive form of hedonism that believes that power—the control over things—is the only intrinsic good, while things like happiness or pleasure are good only in so far as they enhance our will to power or the will to overcome life’s challenges. On the other hand, intrinsic evil pertains to all things that gives rise to weakness.
it is not entirely consequentialist but also contains some virtue ethics, as it also inspires us to develop our character to its noblest level (i.e., übermensch, overman, or superman)
Scholars criticize it for having the potential to justify injustices and rights violations when dealing with the maximization of aggregate good; however, proponents of this ethical theory argue that other moral concepts, like justice and rights, are only valuable in so far as they lead to the maximization of aggregate welfare (instrumental good).
Basic elements
Consequentialism
Utilitarianism determines the morality of an action based on its consequences
The only welfare that utilitarianism considers morally relevant are the overall welfare of all people affected by a particular action
The action that yields the greatest net sum total of welfare is the morally good action
Greatest happiness principle - “The greatest happiness of the greatest number of people”. It is commonly misunderstood as the happiness of the greatest number of people: it focuses more on the action that maximizes the amount of aggregate happiness rather than number of happy people.
It leads to impartiality because everyone’s pleasure is given equal consideration, including the agent
Believes in the concept of utility, or the greatest happiness principle, which sees the promotion of happiness (intended pleasure and absence of pain) as good and its opposition (pain and lack of pleasure) as bad. The morally good action is either the one that results to the greatest amount of pleasure or the one that results to the least amount of pain
It does not distinguish mental and physical pleasures
Bentham came up with a set of criteria called the calculus of felicity or hedonistic calculus to compute which pleasure one ought to choose. These includes the following:
Intensity - the greater intensity of pleasure, the greater the value
Duration - the longer the experience of pleasure, the greater the value
Certainty - the greater the probability of the pleasure, the greater the value
Propinquity (or remoteness) - the shorter the temporal distance, the greater the value
Fecundity (the chance a sensation will be followed by sensations of the same kind) - the higher chances of pleasure being followed by another pleasure, the higher the value
Purity (the chance a sensation will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind) - the higher the chances of pain not following after pleasure, the greater the value
Extent - the more people experiencing pleasure, the greater the value
Hedonistic calculus can also apply to pain; however, they are expressed as negative values. In addition, if an action results to both pleasurable and painful consequences, we can also find its net total through hedonistic calculus by subtracting the total amount of pain from the total amount of pleasure
“Humans are no different from animals when they use pleasure and pain as a basis for their morality”. Mill responds to this objection by highlighting the distinction between mental and physical pleasure: rationality has a higher quality than sentience
“Utilitarianism is bound to fail because there is no objective way to decide which type of pleasure is superior than others”. Mill responds by suggesting to use competent judges—people who experienced the entire spectrum of pleasure/pain or any relevant pleasures involved in a particular action
“Utilitarianism cannot account for the moral goodness of acts of martyrdom/self-sacrifice”. Mill responds by pointing out that utilitarianism is agent-neutral. In addition, he argues that self-sacrifice is not always morally good
It argues that we should maximize the satisfaction of our preferences (desires/interests) instead of pleasure/happiness; therefore, the morally good action is the one that results to the most satisfaction of preferences for the most number of people
preference balancing - the weighing of the relative strengths of the preferences involved in a given situation. This can be done through empathetical reasoning
Aside from pleasure, the other intrinsic goods include beauty, knowledge, power, and healthy social relationships; consequently, the morally good action is one that results to the maximization of any of these intrinsic goods for the most amount of people
Cases that show how something can be desirable yet independent of pleasure:
Attitude towards a person in misery—it is appropriate and should be desired to feel sorrow
Beauty is desirable regardless of the pleasure one derives from contemplating it
It contends that the principle of maximizing the aggregate good should be applied to the act itself; therefore, judging an action’s moral quality is dependent on the consequences of that action
Act utilitarians can justify not adhering to contracts by arguing that adherence to it does not serve the greatest good. For example, when you use the money for paying the barber who cut your hair to not pay them but instead donate to charity so that you can maximize goodness for the most amount of people
Rule utilitarians have an optimfic rule to honor contracts so that they can avoid this issue
It contends that the principle of maximizing the aggregate good should be applied to the rule governing the act; therefore, judging an action’s moral quality is dependent on which rule the action followed
For this reason, some view this as the compromise between deontology and utilitarianism
Optimfic rule - a good rule, meaning that it generally produces the maximum aggregate good or welfare
A good act is one that follows an optimfic rule. A bad one is one that does not.
Rule utilitarianism can lead to rule worship, in which a rule is followed for the sake of following it even if it will not lead to the best consequences