CONSEQUENTIALISM

Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is simply the view that normative properties depend only on
consequences. consequentialism about the moral rightness of acts, which holds that whether an act is
morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as
the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind. (Sinnott-Armstrong 2021)

FORMS OF CONSEQUENTIALISM

HEDONISM

A form of consequentialism is hedonism which claims that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that
pain is the only intrinsic bad. Hedonism = the value of the consequences depends only on
the pleasures and pains in the consequences (as opposed to other supposed goods, such as freedom,
knowledge, life, and so on). (Sinnott-Armstrong 2021)

Hedonism is an ethical theory which holds that the supreme end of man consists in the acquisition of
pleasure, and that action are good or bad according to whether they give or do not give worldly pleasure
or temporal happiness to man. Morality, therefore, is grounded on the pleasure or satisfaction that an
act brings or entails. The good action is the pleasant action. The bad action is what produces pain.
(Montemayor 1994)

UTILITARIANISM

The paradigm case of consequentialism is utilitarianism, whose classic proponents were Jeremy
Bentham (1789), John Stuart Mill (1861), and Henry Sidgwick (1907). (For predecessors, see Schneewind
1997, 2002.) These claims are often summarized in the slogan that an act is right if and only if it causes
“the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” Utilitarianism is consequentialist as opposed to
deontological because of what it denies. It denies that moral rightness depends directly on anything
other than consequences. (Sinnott-Armstrong 2021)

Utilitarianism is a theory very much akin to to Hedonism. It makes utility the norm of morality. Good
that which administers to the temporal welfare and happiness of man, bad which obstructs or hinders or
retards this happiness. According to the utilitarian view, the goodness or badness of an action would
depend on the effects or consequences of the action. An act is good if and when it gives good results, if
it works, (practical/pragmatic), if it makes you successful, if it makes you attain your purpose; bad if it
does not. (Montemayor 1994)

THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF UTILITARIANISM (MONTEMAYOR 1994):

1. Individual or egoistic utilitarianism or simply egoism;

2. Social or altruistic utilitarianism or simply altruism.

According to individual utilitarianism, the norm of morality resides in the usefulness of an action for the
production of the temporal happiness of the individual. Therefore, an act is good when it redounds to
the temporal welfare and happiness of the individual, and bad if it hinders or hampers this happiness.
Social utilitarianism, on the other hand, is that type of utilitarianism which holds that an act is good
when it is conducive to the social good or well-being. This is also called altruism as distinguished from
the first which is called egoism.

THE UTILITARIAN PRECEPT OF PLEASURE-REGARDING (Articulo and Florendo 2003)

Understandably, putting the concept of pleasure at the heart of this theory made many detest it as a
decent standard of conduct. For everyday men, the idea of happiness or pleasure as the ultimate end of
human action is, from the very start, unethical. Many think this theory of life is worthy only of swine
because of the common idea that pleasure means physical or bodily gratification. This objection is
unfounded. Let us correct this misconception by clarifying the utilitarian precept of pleasure-regarding.
(Articulo and Florendo 2003)

Two General Forms of Pleasure There are two general forms of pleasure: physical and mental.
(Articulo and Florendo 2003)

Physical Pleasure

Physical pleasures are sensual indulgences or bodily gratifications that include, among others, sexual
intercourse, eating, drinking, rest, etc. Ill-regulated desires make man pursue pleasure to the injury of
health, even if man knows that health is a greater good. This kind of pleasure is considered by the
utilitarians as animalistic or beastly and make up the lower forms or inferior types of pleasure. Physical
pleasure appeals to people's lower faculties and persons desiring nothing, but physical pleasure are
considered lowly and less dignified.

Mental Pleasure

Mental pleasure refers to intellectual, spiritual and moral pleasures. Menta pleasures feed man's noble
feelings, imaginations and moral sentiments. They are higher or a superior form of pleasure, more
desirable and more valuable as compare to those of mere sensation. Mental pleasures are generally
more difficult to achieve, but make man more dignified. They include, among others, the enjoyment of
free will and intellect, social recognition and regards feeling of self worth and respect, feeling of peace
and security.

It is mental pleasure that the Utilitarian Theory of Morality appeals to when it calls for the promotion of
pleasure or happiness. This corrects the misconception that Utilitarianism is a theory worthy of the
swine. Human beings have faculties far more elevated than animal appetites, and desire greater
pleasure than the pleasure only swine are capable of. Human pride and dignity make man desire a
greater form of happiness. Even when man's pursuit of happiness leads to personal dissatisfaction, he
still thinks he ought not to settle for a beast's pleasures, for these do not satisfy a human being's
conceptions of happiness. According to Mill: It is better to be a human dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied:
better to be Socrates dissatisfied, than to be fools satisfied.

For the utilitarians, happiness or pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends.
These are the only things that can determine if acts are good or contrary to good. If any act promotes or
has promoted happiness or pleasure regardless of the goodness of its motive, the act is good.
Utilitarianism thus, rejects any supernatural basis for morality and makes human welfare or human.
happiness the ultimate standard of right and wrong. At this point, it should be recalled that the
utilitarian concept of happiness does not mean the agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest
amount of happiness put together. This means that even the interest of the agent or the doer of the
moral act must be sacrificed if it runs contrary to the happiness of the greatest number. Thus, the
quality and quantity of pleasure or happiness are taken into account in the utilitarian moral calculation.
(Articulo and Florendo 2003)

UTILITARIAN RULES OF MORALITY (Articulo and Florendo 2003)

Keeping in mind the basic precept of Utilitarianism that an act is good if it produces the greatest amount
of happiness of the greatest number of people, we can now deduce specific rules of morality that will
help us determine if an act is ethical or unethical. The following are the principles:

1. If the end of an act promotes unhappiness, even if it has intended to promote the greatest
happiness, the act can be considered morally wrong. (The case of the Killer Milk)

2. If the end of an act has promoted the greatest amount of happiness of the greatest number of
people, whatever means the act employs is morally justified. (The case of Dr. Robinhood)

3. If an act unintentionally produces the greatest amount of happiness, the act is still morally good.
(The case of the Prank Caller)

Good Contribution Of Utilitarianism And The Workplace (Articulo and Florendo 2003)

Though many would disagree with the major ideas of the Utilitarian Theory, its application undeniably
has positive contributions to the workplace. One of its significant contributions is its capability to
rationalize or justify the various important demands of the workers, like the demands for higher wages,
more benefits, healthy working conditions, fair treatment, etc. The utilitarian theory provides the idea
that it is perfectly moral and just for the workers to make such important demands, and for employers
to satisfy these demands since that would lead to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of
people. The sheer number of common workers which is far greater than the number of the capitalists
can be a basis of moral justifications for the pursuit of their common interests. It heightens the
sensitivity and vigilance of workers to ensure that actions, decisions or policies do not benefit only the
selfish few but the many. This theory does not only work for the workers; it equally serves the interest
of the employers. The assertion of the Utilitarian theory that the interest of the many must be
considered in the formulation of policies or decisions, can help. ensure that decisions and policies will be
popularly supported, thus, guaranteeing their successful implementation. Adherence to the principle
that the interest of the greatest numbers must prevail will also most likely promote a healthier working
relationship between employer and the workers since it satisfies the laymen's perception of justice and
fairness.
Problems Of Utilitarian Morality (Articulo and Florendo 2003)

The strength of the utilitarian theory as a theory of life lies in its emphasis of human welfare as the
ultimate standard of right and wrong. This is like a two-bladed sword, however. It is its strength and at
the same time, the source of its own weakness. The Utilitarian Theory treats everything as conditional
and subservient to utility. Violations of human rights and other unethical acts become morally
justifiable, as long as they promote the utilitarian tenet of the greatest happiness of the greatest
number of people. It is difficult to imagine discrimination or corruption as morally good simply because
it made the greatest number of persons happy.

Many correctly argue that the most serious problem of this theory is its attempt to quantify human
dignity, that is, the treatment of human beings as mere numbers especially in the utilitarian calculation:
the happiness of fifty persons justifies the denial of the happiness, or even the life of one person.

Human beings are far greater than mere numbers. Individually, they have dignity which must be treated
with respect. The theory falls short in explaining or justifying the idea that the wellbeing of the
individual, or of the minority, must be sacrificed for the interest of the many. Some question what gives
many the moral right to violate and/or to disregard the interests of the few or of a particular individual.
There is no clear basis why the greatest number must always prevail over the interest of the few. This
makes others think that the Utilitarian Theory may lead to the tyranny of the greatest number or the
tyranny of the majority. What happens to the less fortunate few if we always think about the happiness
and pleasure of many? The other problem of utilitarianism is its overemphasis on the calculation of
causal consequences. Most of the time, life presents situations where we need to decide fast, with little
room for calculation. If we calculate all the persons who will benefit and all who will suffer every time
we make our decisions, we will all end up doing nothing or we will find ourselves acting too late.

Critical Appreciation of Hedonism and Utilitarianism (Montemayor 1994)

Merits of these Theories

Hedonism and Utilitarianism explain very well the emotional basis and aspects of human actions. There
is always some satisfaction accompanying the doing of every good act. Hedonism or Utilitarian- ism also
explains well the reasons behind the doing of action by most people. For there is no doubt that most of
them are motivated in their action by their desire for satisfaction or happiness or well-being.

Defects of Hedonism and Utilitarianism (Montemayor 1994)

1) Both propose an earthly goal for man, namely, the temporal welfare here on earth, whereas we have
already proved in a former thesis that the ultimate and supreme purpose of man cannot be found in this
life.

2) Both make or tend to make morality relative (since what is pleasant or useful to one may be painful
and harmful to another); but relative morality leads to moral chaos and destruction.

3) Both theories make morality extrinsic because they make it depend on the effect or on a concomitant
factor of an act, whereas as we have already shown, morality is intrinsic: that is, it is based on the very
essence of things and on the nature of the act itself. Hedonism and Utilitarianism mistake the indicative
for the constitutive. They confuse the nature of the act and the effect of the act as if they should mistake
the symptom for the disease.

Satisfaction or pleasure may indicate and accompany the doing of a good act; but the act is good not
because it brings satisfaction, but, rather, it brings satisfaction because it is good. In other words, the
pleasure follows from the goodness and not the goodness from the satisfaction. The satisfaction or
pleasure is merely an effect, and an indication, but not the cause or the reason of the goodness of an
action.

Universal Consequentialism = moral rightness depends on the consequences for all people or sentient
beings (as opposed to only the individual agent, members of the individual’s society, present people, or
any other limited group).

References:

Articulo, Archimedes & Florendo, Gloria. Values and Work Ethics. Philippines: Trinitas Publishing, Inc.,
2003.

Babor, Eddie. Ethics: The Philosophical Discipline of Actions, Updated edition. Manila: Rex Book Store,
2006.

Castillo, Ramon. Ground and Norm of Morality, Revised edition. Philippines: Ateneo de Manila
University Press. 2009

Montemayor, Felix. Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. Manila: National Book Store, 1994.

Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, "Consequentialism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021

Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/consequentialism/>.