Author: Shane Gronholz
Word Count: 1000
Think about something you did today. Chances are, you did it because you wanted to make something happen, to accomplish some goal, to achieve some end, to bring about certain consequences. It could have been an important end, for example, maybe you gave someone CPR to save their life. Or it could have been relatively insignificant, for example, maybe you had Cap’n Crunch cereal for breakfast because you knew you would enjoy it. Upon reflection, it starts to seem as though everything we do is in order to bring about some consequence. What does it mean to bring about a consequence? Here is one way to look at it: Bringing about a consequence is a way of changing the world, in a small or a large way. I want the world to be thus-and-so, but it’s not currently thus-and-so, so I will perform this action to make it thus-and-so.
The point is that we often, maybe always, do things to bring about certain consequences.1 Why would you do anything if you didn’t think it was going to have some result? This has led some thinkers, such as John Stuart Mill, to reason, “All action is for the sake of some end, and rules of action, it seems natural to suppose, must take their whole character and colour from the end to which they are subservient.”2 If all of our actions are done for the sake of bringing about some consequence, and the consequences are ultimately what we care about, then it makes sense to judge actions, that is, to determine the moral status of actions, based on their consequences. This view is known as consequentialism: That the consequences of an action are all that matter in moral assessment.
And it turns out consequences do seem to dominate our moral thinking. Why should I donate to a charity? Because people in need will be made better off. Why is it wrong to vandalize property? Because you will likely make the space uglier, and it would be costly to fix it. It can actually be somewhat difficult to think of an immoral action that has no bad consequences. For example, what is wrong with lying? Well, if I lie, it might cause you to not trust me in the future, or it might hurt your feelings were you to find out. But many of us think that if a lie would truly be harmless, then there wouldn’t be anything wrong with it. That is just what a “white lie” is, and many of us tend to think there is nothing wrong with white lies.
Problems for Consequentialism
While consequentialism sounds appealing at the outset, it has some troubling implications. If you’ve ever said, “The ends do not justify the means,” you were expressing a non-consequentialist sentiment. There are many actions that consequentialism would entail are perfectly fine, or even obligatory, but that we tend to think are very wrong. Suppose your friend, on her deathbed, makes you promise to spread her ashes in the Rocky Mountains. After her death, you realize it would be much more convenient to simply flush her ashes down the toilet. You would save a lot of time and money, and no one would be harmed. Since this act appears to have no bad consequences, consequentialism entails there would be nothing wrong with this, but most of us think there would be.
Or consider a forceful example from the film Kill Bill. The character known as The Bride is in a coma, and the hospital workers regularly rape her while she is unconscious. Assuming they will cause no bodily damage, that no one will find out, etc., it’s hard to see how a consequentialist could explain how this is wrong. And yet, we tend to think there is something deeply wrong with that behavior. There are many more examples philosophers have considered. I invite you to try to think of some of your own.
How is a consequentialist to respond to these counterexamples? One strategy is to show that, in fact, these actions will have bad consequences. Perhaps your friend’s mother will find out what you did with her daughter’s ashes. You might be good at keeping secrets, but keeping secrets is mentally and emotionally taxing. Or again, suppose someone were to find out that the hospital workers were raping The Bride. That would have terrible consequences. But this is a fairly weak response. We can sometimes be pretty certain our actions won’t have any bad consequences.3 In that case, the consequentialist must admit that flushing the ashes down the toilet was the right thing to do. But perhaps that’s not so bad. If nothing bad whatsoever follows from your action, why not do it after all? No harm, no foul. This response is more satisfying in some cases than others. It might satisfy some in the ashes case, but it’s much less satisfying when it comes to raping the comatose.
Another way to avoid these problems is to resort to rule-consequentialism.4 According to rule consequentialism, we should not simply perform the individual action that will produce good consequences. Instead, we should follow rules that, when followed, lead to good consequences. In general, rape has terrible consequences. Following the rule “do not rape” would have good consequences,5 so we should follow that rule, even if there could be cases of potential rape that do not have the terrible consequences rape tends to have. But this view has a major problem. If what you care about are indeed the consequences, and you realize you could bring about good consequences by breaking the rule, why would you continue to abide by the rule? This view seems to undercut its very motivation.
In all, while consequentialism initially seems a promising and intuitive moral theory, it can yield strange moral results. This might show that consequentialism is false, or that consequences aren’t all that matter in moral assessment. Or maybe consequentialism is true after all, and true morality doesn’t always jibe with our everyday intuitions.
1Of course, sometimes we’re bad at anticipating the consequences of our actions. Maybe I make a bad investment because I am shortsighted. But even in that case, I was thinking about the consequences (getting more money) – I just wasn’t doing a very good job of predicting the consequences.
3For example: Maybe your friend has no other loved ones, so there is no one who would know about what you did, no one who would get upset, no one from whom you would have to keep it secret.
4The view we have been discussing so far is known as act-consequentialism.
5Or would at least avoid bad consequences.
About the Author
Shane is a doctoral candidate in philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He holds an M.A. in philosophy from the University of Colorado, Boulder and a B.A. from Whitworth University where he double majored in philosophy and religion. Shane is interested in metaethics, ethical theory, practical rationality, and philosophy of religion. He lives in Denver with his wife (Stephanie), son (Maxwell), and dog (Benny).