Editing Ethics (section)

=== Consequentialism ===
{{main|Consequentialism}}

Consequentialism, also called teleological ethics,<ref>{{harvnb|Bunnin|Yu|2009|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=M7ZFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA134 134]}}</ref>{{efn|According to some theorists, ''teleological ethics'' is a wider term than ''consequentialism'' because it also covers certain forms of virtue ethics.<ref>{{harvnb|McNaughton|Rawling|1998|loc=§ 1. Act-consequentialism}}</ref>}} says that morality depends on consequences. According to the most common view, an act is right if it brings the best future. This means that there is no alternative course of action that has better consequences.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Haines|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2023|loc=§ 1. Utilitarianism}} }}</ref> A key aspect of consequentialist theories is that they provide a characterization of what is good and then define what is right in terms of what is good.<ref name="Crisp 2005 200–201">{{multiref | {{harvnb|Crisp|2005|pp=200–201}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}} | {{harvnb|Murthy|2009|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=tzhEBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA74 74]}} }}</ref> For example, classical [[utilitarianism]] says that pleasure is good and that the action leading to the most overall pleasure is right.<ref>{{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=§ 1. Classic Utilitarianism}}</ref> Consequentialism has been discussed indirectly since the formulation of classical utilitarianism in the late 18th century. A more explicit analysis of this view happened in the 20th century, when the term was coined by [[G. E. M. Anscombe]].<ref>{{harvnb|Carlson|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=VHIlBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 1]}}</ref>

Consequentialists usually understand the consequences of an action in a very wide sense that includes the totality of its effects. This is based on the idea that actions make a difference in the world by bringing about a [[Causality|causal]] chain of events that would not have existed otherwise.<ref>{{harvnb|Dorsey|2020|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=d0D8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA97 97–98]}}</ref> A core intuition behind consequentialism is that the future should be shaped to achieve the best possible outcome.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Haines|loc=Lead section}} }}</ref>

The act itself is usually not seen as part of the consequences. This means that if an act has [[Intrinsic value (ethics)|intrinsic value]] or disvalue, it is not included as a factor. Some consequentialists see this as a flaw, saying that all value-relevant factors need to be considered. They try to avoid this complication by including the act itself as part of the consequences. A related approach is to characterize consequentialism not in terms of consequences but in terms of outcome, with the outcome being defined as the act together with its consequences.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} | {{harvnb|Zimmerman|2015|p=17}} }}</ref>

Most forms of consequentialism are agent-neutral. This means that the value of consequences is assessed from a neutral perspective, that is, acts should have consequences that are good in general and not just good for the agent. It is controversial whether agent-relative moral theories, like [[ethical egoism]], should be considered as types of consequentialism.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} | {{harvnb|Edmundson|2004|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=QYh_vN7CqMEC&pg=PA158 158]}} | {{harvnb|Brink|2020|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=U0D8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA382 382]}} }}</ref>

==== Types ====
There are many different types of consequentialism. They differ based on what type of entity they evaluate, what consequences they take into consideration, and how they determine the value of consequences.<ref>{{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=Lead section}}</ref> Most theories assess the moral value of acts. However, consequentialism can also be used to evaluate [[motivation|motives]], [[character trait]]s, rules, and [[policies]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=Lead section, § 5. Consequences of What? Rights, Relativity, and Rules}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} }}</ref>

Many types assess the value of consequences based on whether they promote happiness or suffering. But there are also alternative evaluative principles, such as [[desire]] satisfaction, [[autonomy]], [[freedom]], [[knowledge]], [[friendship]], [[beauty]], and self-perfection.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Haines|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=Lead section, § 3. What Is Good? Hedonistic Vs. Pluralistic Consequentialisms}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} }}</ref> Some forms of consequentialism hold that there is only a [[Axiology#Monism and pluralism|single source of value]].<ref name="Alexander 2021 loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism">{{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}}</ref> The most prominent among them is classical [[utilitarianism]], which states that the moral value of acts only depends on the [[pleasure]] and [[suffering]] they cause.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}} }}</ref> An alternative approach says that there are many different sources of value, which all contribute to one overall value.<ref name="Alexander 2021 loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism"/> Before the 20th century, consequentialists were only concerned with the total of value or the aggregate good. In the 20th century, alternative views were developed that additionally consider the distribution of value. One of them states that an equal distribution of goods is better than an unequal distribution even if the aggregate good is the same.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} | {{harvnb|Cummiskey|1996|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZYPmCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA157 157–158]}} }}</ref>

There are disagreements about which consequences should be assessed. An important distinction is between act consequentialism and rule consequentialism. According to act consequentialism, the consequences of an act determine its moral value. This means that there is a direct relation between the consequences of an act and its moral value. Rule consequentialism, by contrast, holds that an act is right if it follows a certain set of rules. Rule consequentialism determines the best rules by considering their outcomes at a community level. People should follow the rules that lead to the best consequences when everyone in the community follows them. This implies that the relation between an act and its consequences is indirect. For example, if telling the truth is one of the best rules, then according to rule consequentialism, a person should tell the truth even in specific cases where lying would lead to better consequences.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=5. Consequences of What? Rights, Relativity, and Rules}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2023|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Haines|loc=§ 1f. Rule Consequentialism}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|p=164}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}} }}</ref>

Another disagreement is between actual and expected consequentialism. According to the traditional view, only the actual consequences of an act affect its moral value. One difficulty of this view is that many consequences cannot be known in advance. This means that in some cases, even well-planned and intentioned acts are morally wrong if they inadvertently lead to negative outcomes. An alternative perspective states that what matters are not the actual consequences but the expected consequences. This view takes into account that when deciding what to do, people have to rely on their limited knowledge of the total consequences of their actions. According to this view, a course of action has positive moral value despite leading to an overall negative outcome if it had the highest [[expected value]], for example, because the negative outcome could not be anticipated or was unlikely.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=§ 1. Classic Utilitarianism, § 4. Which Consequences? Actual Vs. Expected Consequentialisms}} }}</ref>

A further difference is between [[Maximization (psychology)|maximizing]] and [[satisficing]] consequentialism. According to maximizing consequentialism, only the best possible act is morally permitted. This means that acts with positive consequences are wrong if there are alternatives with even better consequences. One criticism of maximizing consequentialism is that it demands too much by requiring that people do significantly more than they are socially expected to. For example, if the best action for someone with a good salary would be to donate 70% of their income to charity, it would be morally wrong for them to only donate 65%. Satisficing consequentialism, by contrast, only requires that an act is "good enough" even if it is not the best possible alternative. According to this view, it is possible to do more than one is morally required to do.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|p=164}} | {{harvnb|Slote|2005|pp=938–939}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}} | {{harvnb|Singer|2016|pp=47–48}} | {{harvnb|Byron|2004|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=bRFFsQE2BrQC&pg=PA9 9]}} }}</ref>{{efn|This state is known as [[supererogation]].<ref>{{harvnb|Heyd|2019|loc=Lead section}}</ref>}}

[[Mohism]] in ancient [[Chinese philosophy]] is one of the earliest forms of consequentialism. It arose in the 5th century BCE and argued that political action should promote justice as a means to increase the welfare of the people.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Littlejohn|loc=§ 1c. Mozi (c. 470-391 B.C.E.) and Mohism}} | {{harvnb|Zhang|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=2ka8EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA96 96]}} }}</ref>

==== Utilitarianism ====
{{main|Utilitarianism}}
The most well-known form of consequentialism is utilitarianism. In its classical form, it is an act consequentialism that sees [[happiness]] as the only source of intrinsic value. This means that an act is morally right if it produces "the greatest good for the greatest number" by increasing happiness and reducing suffering. Utilitarians do not deny that other things also have value, like health, friendship, and knowledge. However, they deny that these things have intrinsic value. Instead, they say that they have extrinsic value because they affect happiness and suffering. In this regard, they are desirable as a means but, unlike happiness, not as an end.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Slote|2005|pp=936, 938}} | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=§ 1. Classic Utilitarianism}} }}</ref> The view that pleasure is the only thing with intrinsic value is called ethical or [[evaluative hedonism]].<ref>{{harvnb|Moore|2019|loc=Lead section, § 2. Ethical Hedonism}}</ref>

{{multiple image
|total_width=400px
|perrow=2/1
|image1=Jeremy_Bentham_by_Henry_William_Pickersgill_detail.jpg
|alt1=Painting of Jeremy Bentham
|image2=John_Stuart_Mill_by_London_Stereoscopic_Company,_c1870.jpg
|alt2=Photo of John Stuart Mill
|footer=[[Jeremy Bentham]] and [[John Stuart Mill]] are the founding fathers of classical utilitarianism.<ref>{{harvnb|Suikkanen|2020|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=343mDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA24 24]}}</ref>
}}

Classical utilitarianism was initially formulated by [[Jeremy Bentham]] at the end of the 18th century and further developed by [[John Stuart Mill]]. Bentham introduced the [[hedonic calculus]] to assess the value of consequences. Two key aspects of the hedonic calculus are the intensity and the duration of pleasure. According to this view, a pleasurable experience has a high value if it has a high intensity and lasts for a long time. A common criticism of Bentham's utilitarianism argued that its focus on the intensity of pleasure promotes an immoral lifestyle centered around indulgence in sensory gratification. Mill responded to this criticism by distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures. He stated that higher pleasures, like the intellectual satisfaction of reading a book, are more valuable than lower pleasures, like the sensory enjoyment of food and drink, even if their intensity and duration are the same.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Slote|2005|pp=936, 938}} | {{harvnb|Mendus|2005|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=wYWGIpa7Qr4C&pg=PA141 141]}} | {{harvnb|Kivy|2011|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=-c7ThZc5Rv0C&pg=PA238 238]}} }}</ref> Since its original formulation, many variations of utilitarianism have developed, including the difference between [[Act utilitarianism|act]] and [[rule utilitarianism]] and between maximizing and satisficing utilitarianism.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Slote|2005|p=938}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2014|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=z3zBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA281 281]}} | {{harvnb|Satyanarayana|2009|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=gjiBTNR1g0kC&pg=PT76 76]}} }}</ref>