venerdì 5 febbraio 2010
Tutorial # 4. Consequentialism. A Few Distinctions
Fig. from Principia Comica
What is Consequentialism?
Excerpts from Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2006). ‘Consequentialism’ in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Def. The view that the value of an action is determined by the value of its consequences rather than by the principle on which the action is performed or the virtue it expresses.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, where the relevant value is individual happiness or well-being.
[Distinctions]
"Classic utilitarians held hedonistic act consequentialism: an act is morally right if and only if that act causes "the greatest happiness for the greatest number," as the common slogan says.
Classic utilitarianism is actually a complex combination of many distinct claims, including the following claims about the moral rightness of acts:
Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act).
Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the actual consequences (as opposed to foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences).
Direct Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act itself (as opposed to the consequences of the agent's motive, of a rule or practice that covers other acts of the same kind, and so on).
Evaluative Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the value of the consequences (as opposed to other features of the consequences).
Hedonism = the value of the consequences depends only on the pleasures and pains in the consequences (as opposed to other goods, such as freedom, knowledge, life, and so on).
Maximizing Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on which consequences are best (as opposed to satisfactory or an improvement over the status quo).
Aggregative Consequentialism = which consequences are best is some function of the values of parts of those consequences (as opposed to rankings of whole worlds or sets of consequences).
Total Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the total net good in the consequences (as opposed to the average net good per person).
Universal Consequentialism = moral rightness depends on the consequences for all people or sentient beings (as opposed to only the individual agent, present people, or any other limited group).
Equal Consideration = in determining moral rightness, benefits to one person matter just as much as similar benefits to any other person (= all who count count equally).
Agent-neutrality = whether some consequences are better than others does not depend on whether the consequences are evaluated from the perspective of the agent (as opposed to an observer).
…
Any consequentialist theory must accept the claim that I labeled ‘consequentialism’, namely, that certain normative properties depend only on consequences. If that claim is dropped, the theory ceases to be consequentialist.
It is less clear whether that claim by itself is sufficient to make a theory consequentialist."
Iscriviti a:
Commenti sul post (Atom)
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento