Consequentialist Theories of Right and Wrong
Two Kinds of Consequentialist Theories
1. Deontological Consequentialist Theories
2. Axiological Consequentialist Theories
Some consequentialist theories are deontological—e.g.:
1. “Utilitarianism of Rights”—An action is right if and only if it involves
“honoring more rights (or violating fewer rights, as the case may be) than any
other alternative, and if the rights honored (or whose violation is minimized)
are of the most important kind.” (Holmes, p. 118)
2. Theories emphasizing Distributive Justice—The degree to which the good and
bad resulting from an action is justly or fairly distributed among individuals
affects whether the action is right or wrong.
3. Consequentialist “Golden Rule”—An action is right if and only if the agent
(person performing the action) would be willing to accept the consequences
for himself/herself that he/she is causing for others.
The most important consequentialist theories are axiological consequentialist
theories:
1. Ethical Egoism
2. Utilitarian theories
Two Types of Utilitarian Theories:
1. Act Utilitarianism (AU)—An action is right if and only if it produces at least
as great a balance of good over bad in its consequences for all people (or
sentient beings) affected as any other action available to the agent.
2. Rule Utilitarianism (RU)—An action is right if and only if it accords with a
rule that if generally followed by people would produce as great a balance of
good over bad for all people (or sentient beings) affected as would be
produced if any alternative rule were generally followed.
“balance of good over bad”: “Good” and “bad” refer to intrinsic value
Two Concepts of Value (Goodness):
1. Intrinsic Value—value that something has inherently and not because of its
relationship to other things
2. Extrinsic Value—value that something has because of its relationship to
other things. (e.g., money)
Utilitarian theories may be classified according to the theories of intrinsic value
that they incorporate.
 Hedonistic (Classical) Utilitarianism—includes all act and rule utilitarian
theories that presuppose hedonism as the theory of intrinsic value
 Ideal Utilitarianism—includes all act and rule utilitarian theories that
presuppose some theory of intrinsic value other than hedonism (often
pluralism)
Two Forms of Rule Utilitarianism:
1. Actual Rule Utilitarianism (ARU)—assumes that the rules that would have
the best consequences if generally followed by people are the conventional
rules of society
2. Ideal Rule Utilitarianism (IRU)—does not assume that the rules that would
have the best consequences if generally followed by people are the
conventional rules of society. I.e., there is an ideal set of rules.
Some Arguments Against Act Utilitarianism
Argument 1
1. In order to follow an act utilitarian theory of obligation, we must
predict all the future consequences of our actions for all persons
affected by our actions.
2. We cannot predict all the future consequences of our actions for all
persons affected by our actions.
3. Therefore,
Act utilitarian theories of obligation are unsatisfactory.
Argument 2
1. 1. Act utilitarian theories of obligation does allow such considerations
as truth-telling, promise-keeping, violation of rights, and justice to
have any effect on the moral rightness or wrongness of actions.
2. Sometimes, such considerations as truth-telling, promise-keeping,
violation of rights, and justice do affect the moral rightness or
wrongness of actions.
3. Therefore,
Act utilitarian theories of obligation are unsatisfactory.
Some Arguments Against Rule Utilitarianism
Argument Against ARU
1. Sometimes the rules that would have the best consequences if
generally followed by people are not the conventional rules of
society—e.g., rules allowing the owning of slaves
2. If ARU is true, then the rules that would have the best consequences if
generally followed by people are always the conventional rules of
society.
3. Therefore,
ARU is false.
Argument Against IRU
1. IRU is equivalent to AU—i.e., IRU implies that the same actions are
morally right/wrong as AU.
2. If IRU is equivalent to AU, then IRU is not a better theory than AU.
3. Therefore,
IRU is not a better theory of moral obligation than AU
Argument for premise 1—
1. If people generally followed AU, then at least as great a balance of
good over bad would result as would result if they generally followed
any other rule.
2. If at least as great a balance of good over bad would result from
people’s generally following AU as would result from their generally
following any other rule, then according to IRU, they should follow
AU.
3. Therefore, according to IRU, people should always follow AU.
Therefore, IRU is equivalent to AU.