Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Consequentialism: Strategic Ethics in Warfare
    Consequentialism: Strategic Ethics in Warfare
    Consequentialism: Strategic Ethics in Warfare
    Ebook124 pages1 hour

    Consequentialism: Strategic Ethics in Warfare

    By Fouad Sabry

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    What is Consequentialism


    In moral philosophy, consequentialism is a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act is one that will produce a good outcome. Consequentialism, along with eudaimonism, falls under the broader category of teleological ethics, a group of views which claim that the moral value of any act consists in its tendency to produce things of intrinsic value. Consequentialists hold in general that an act is right if and only if the act will produce, will probably produce, or is intended to produce, a greater balance of good over evil than any available alternative. Different consequentialist theories differ in how they define moral goods, with chief candidates including pleasure, the absence of pain, the satisfaction of one's preferences, and broader notions of the "general good".


    How you will benefit


    (I) Insights, and validations about the following topics:


    Chapter 1: Consequentialism


    Chapter 2: Applied ethics


    Chapter 3: Ethics


    Chapter 4: Normative ethics


    Chapter 5: Utilitarianism


    Chapter 6: Virtue ethics


    Chapter 7: Deontology


    Chapter 8: Welfarism


    Chapter 9: Preference utilitarianism


    Chapter 10: Bernard Gert


    (II) Answering the public top questions about consequentialism.


    Who this book is for


    Professionals, undergraduate and graduate students, enthusiasts, hobbyists, and those who want to go beyond basic knowledge or information for any kind of Consequentialism.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherOne Billion Knowledgeable
    Release dateJun 3, 2024
    Consequentialism: Strategic Ethics in Warfare

    Read more from Fouad Sabry

    Related authors

    Related to Consequentialism

    Titles in the series (100)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Public Policy For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related categories

    Reviews for Consequentialism

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Consequentialism - Fouad Sabry

      Chapter 1: Consequentialism

      Consequencealism is a category of normative, teleological ethical theories in ethical philosophy that asserts that the ultimate standard for determining whether one's actions are right or wrong is the consequences of those actions. Therefore, from a consequentialist perspective, a morally appropriate action (or inaction) is one that will result in a favorable result. The larger concept of teleological ethics, which includes consequentialism and eudaimonism, holds that any action's moral worth is determined by how likely it is to result in objects having intrinsic value. Consequentialists often believe that a course of action is morally correct if and only if it will result in a greater balance of good over evil than any other possible course of action (or, in some views, the rule under which it falls). The primary possibilities for the definition of moral goods in various consequentialist theories are pleasure, the absence of pain, the satisfaction of one's preferences, and broader concepts of the universal good..

      Consequentialism is typically contrasted with deontological ethics (or deontology), which derives the rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the nature of the behavior itself rather than the outcomes of the action. Deontology is a system in which rules and moral duty are important. It is also contrasted with pragmatic ethics, which treats morality like science: advancing collectively as a society over the course of many lifetimes, such that any moral standard is subject to revision, and virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than the nature or consequences of the act (or omission) itself.

      Some contend that deontological theories (like Kantian ethics) and consequentialist theories (like utilitarianism) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The argument put forth by T. M. Scanlon, for instance, is that human rights, which are typically seen as a deontological concept, can only be justified in light of how having those rights will affect other people.

      Pain and pleasure are the two royal masters that nature has given to mankind. They alone are responsible for identifying what we should do and deciding what we will do. The chain of causes and effects and the standard of good and evil are affixed to their thrones, respectively, on the one hand. They direct all of our actions, words, and thoughts.

      — Jeremy Bentham, The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) Ch I, p 1

      In conclusion, Jeremy Bentham asserts that people are motivated by both their interests and their fears, but that their interests take precedence over their fears and that people act on their interests in line with how they perceive the potential consequences of doing so. According to this definition, happiness is the pursuit of maximum pleasure while minimizing suffering. It might be claimed that for the sensation of pleasure or suffering to have an ethical value, phenomenal consciousness and qualia are necessary. But some modern utilitarians, like Peter Singer, are focused on maximizing the fulfillment of preferences, which is why preference utilitarianism is a thing. The consequentialist views described below are mirrored by other modern utilitarian ideologies.

      Consequentialist theories typically concentrate on actions. This need not be the case, though. Rule consequentialism is a theory that is sometimes considered as an effort to bring deontology, or rules-based ethics, and consequentialism together. Rule consequentialism, like deontology, asserts that moral behavior necessitates adherence to a set of rules. Rule consequentialism, on the other hand, bases its decision-making on the effects that a rule's selection will have. Rule utilitarianism and rule egoism are examples of rule consequentialism.

      There is disagreement among different philosophers as to whether or not moral behavior is solely determined by the laws. For instance, Robert Nozick claimed that to assure acceptable activities, a particular set of minimal norms, which he refers to as side-constraints, are required. In other words, they may be broken if strict obedience to the norm will have significantly worse results.

      One of the most common criticisms of rule-consequentialism is that it lacks coherence because it is founded on the consequentialist principle, which holds that our main concern should be maximizing the good, but instructs us instead to act in a way that does not maximize the good instead of adhering to rules (even in cases where we know that breaking the rule could produce better results).

      Brad Hooker avoids this criticism in Ideal Code, Real World by not basing his version of rule-consequentialism on the goal of maximizing the good. He documents:

      [T] The best justification for rule-consequentialism does not lie in the fact that it is based on a general commitment to maximize good. The strongest justification for rule-consequentialism is that, compared to its competitors, it performs a better job of linking together and matching our moral convictions and helping us with our moral conflicts and difficulties.

      The greatest articulation and defense, to date, of one of the most important moral theories, according to Derek Parfit, can be found in Hooker's book.

      The benevolent man's responsibility is to work to advance what is good for the world, eradicate what is bad, and serve as an example for everyone else. He will do what benefits men, but he will leave things alone that don't.

      — Mozi, Mozi (5th century BC) Part I

      Mohist consequentialism is another name for state consequentialism, A consequentialist theory, ethical egoism takes the position that the consequences for the individual agent matter more than any other outcome. Therefore, egoism will dictate activities that may be advantageous to the welfare of others, harmful to their wellbeing, or neutral. Some people, like Henry Sidgwick, contend that a certain amount of egoism promotes society's overall well-being for two reasons: first, because people are most adept at putting their own interests first, and second, because if everyone were an austere altruist, overall well-being would inevitably decline.

      It is possible to think of ethical altruism as a consequentialist theory that urges people to act in a way that benefits everyone but themselves.

      The two-level approach entails using critical reasoning and weighing all the consequences of one's actions before coming to an ethical conclusion, but it also involves falling back on generally dependable moral principles when one is unable to step back and assess the situation as a whole. This translates into following rule consequentialism when one can only reason intuitively and following act consequentialism when one is able to step back and reason more critically.

      Motive consequentialism is another form of consequentialism that examines if the outcome of a choice of action is better or at least equally good as each other outcome that would have come about as a result of a different action. In this interpretation, the motivation behind an action is relevant and connected to its results. Therefore, if the decision to act was made with a good reason, the action cannot be considered incorrect. One possible conclusion is that if one made a decision with the intention of doing good, they cannot be held accountable.

      The majority of consequentialist theories emphasize encouraging positive outcomes. Negative utilitarianism, on the other hand, presents a consequentialist theory that is entirely concerned with minimizing negative outcomes.

      These two strategies differ significantly in one important way: the agent's obligation. Positive consequentialism calls for us to create favorable conditions, whilst negative consequentialism calls for us to prevent unfavorable ones. Stronger negative consequentialist theories will call for active action to stop terrible things from happening and to lessen the effects of harm already done. Simple refraining from actions that would damage others is adequate in weaker versions. The slippery-slope defense, which urges people to refrain from doing something because it might ultimately have negative effects, is an illustration of this. This is regarded as a classic expression of negative utilitarianism, despite Popper not being a consequentialist per se. The less suffering there is (for the disadvantaged), the more important it is than more pleasure, is a notion that negative consequentialists may apply while thinking about a theory of justice (for the affluent or luxurious).

      Most consequentialist theories maintain that a

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1