Consequentialism

Consequentialism is the moral theory according to which it is morally wrong to anything that will result in a worse outcome than some other possible action - or put differently, that you are morally required to take whatever course of action will have the very best results of all available courses of action. The moral theory of utilitarianism, which says that you are morally required to do whatever will produce the most happiness, is often thought of as what you get when you combine consequentialism with hedonism.

Because Moore thinks that hedonism is a mistake, he is also a harsh critic of utilitarianism. But in contrast, he does not think that consequentialism is a mistake. On the contrary, he thinks that consequentialism tells us what it means to say that an action is right, or what someone ought to do. In this final selection that we are reading from Principia Ethica, we will examine Moore’s argument for consequentialism and the uneasy place that it occupies when put next to his arguments for the simplicity of good from chapter one.

Reading

To prepare for class, please read chapter five of Principia Ethica, sections 86 to 109. As you read, ask yourself: does Moore think that rightness is simple, like good, or not? Why does he think this? And how does it compare to his arguments from chapter one about good? What is Moore’s argument for consequentialism? Are you convinced by it?

And here is a considerably harder question that is also worth thinking about, if you have had the opportunity to think about utilitarianism before: once we are pluralists about goodness, like Moore, what is distinctive about consequentialism? What would it look like, to deny it?