CONSEQUENTIALISM
TROLLEY
A runaway trolley is coming down the track. It is headed towards five people who cannot get out
of its way. The driver of the trolley realizes that he can save the five by throwing a switch and
diverting the trolley down a siding, but he also realizes that if he does so the trolley will kill a lone
an standing on the siding.
Should the driver divert the trolley?
A runaway trolley is coming down the track. It is headed towards five people
who cannot get out of its way. A passerby realizes that if he pushes a
nearby overweight man onto the tracks his bulk will stop the trolley before it
hits the five, though the overweight man himself will be killed.
You are a doctor and 5 people who were injured in a trolley
accident come into your emergency room. You quickly
realize that you can tend to 4/5 injured people in order to
save their lives but it will take you all day to do this because
you are the only doctor in the emergency room. The last
fellow is so severely injured that in order to save his life you
must spend all day on him as well. You only have enough
time to save 4 or 1. What decision will you make?
You are a transplant doctor who just received 5
patients in need of transplants. Each needs a
different organ. You just remembered that in the
other room a man walked in for a routine check up
and he unfortunately feel asleep. If these 5 patients
don’t receive a transplant today, they will die. Do
you use the sleeping man’s organs?
CONSEQUENTIALISM


We don’t always have to focus on actions. We
can also focus on consequences.
Consequentialism is based on the premise
that our ethical choices, like other types of
decisions, should be based on their
consequences. In consequentialism, the
consequences of actions are measured against
one value. This ‘useful’ value can be something
like happiness, welfare or pleasure. It should be
maximized. So if the consequences are good,
the act is right. If the consequences are bad,
the act is wrong.
Utilitarianism vs. Egoism
An obvious question however arises when evaluating
the consequences of an action.
If you evaluate the consequences just for yourself
your judgement will be different than if you
evaluate the consequences for some other
individual. Take the example of you hitting a
Porsche in the middle of the night when no one is
around to witness it.
The answers to these questions form the bases for
two theories:
 Utilitarianism
 Egoism
Egoism

This is a consequentialist theory that contends
that we act morally when we act in a way that
promotes our own best long-term interests.
Therefore when deciding the morality of an
action, we should only consider the consequences
for ourselves.
Utilitarianism
The name of utilitarianism is derived from the
Latin ‘utilis’, meaning ‘useful’. This second
type of consequentialism is utilitarianism,
founded by English philosophers Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill. They argued
that the best decisions
 (1) generate the most benefits as
compared to their disadvantages,
 (2) benefit the largest number of
people.
In other words, Utilitarianism is
attempting to do the greatest good
for the greatest number of people.
Ratio of Harm to Evil



An action is morally right if it results in pleasure, whereas it
is wrong if it gives rise to pain. The freedom principle is
also based on this. This principle states that you can do
whatever you want, as long as you don’t cause anyone any
pain/harm.
Utilitarians are more concerned about the ratio of harm
to evil than the absolute amount of happiness or
unhappiness produced by a choice.
In other words, a decision that produces a great amount of
good but an equal amount of harm would be rejected in
favour of an alternative that produces a moderate amount
of good at very little cost.
Short and Long Term
Consequences


Utilitarians consider both short- and longterm consequences when making ethical
determinations. If the immediate benefits of
a decision doesn’t outweigh its possible
future costs, then the decision that produces
long term benefits is chosen.
However, if the immediate good is sure and
the future good uncertain, decision makers
generally select the option that produces the
short-term benefit


Further, the Utilitarian decision maker keeps her or
his own interests in mind but gives them no more
weight than anyone else’s.
Making a choice according to Utilitarian principles is
a three-step process.



First, identify all the possible courses of action.
Second, estimate the direct as well as indirect pain
(costs) and pleasure (benefits) for each course of action.
Finally, select the alternative that produces the greatest
amount of good based on the pleasure-pain ratios
generated in step two.
How to calculate the
pleasure/pain ratio
Bentham attempted to calculate the pleasure-ratio
by basing it on several criteria:
 Intensity of the pleasure
 How long it lasts
 How certain it is to occur
 How likely it is to produce additional pleasure
 Quality (added by Mill and it refers to the moral
superiority that one pleasure holds over
another)
CRITISIMS


Utilitarianism is probably the most defensible
approach in emergency situations, such as in the
wake of the massive earthquake that hit Pakistan
in 2005. In the midst of such widespread
devastation, medical personnel ought to give top
priority to those who are most likely to survive. It
does little good to spend time with a terminal
patient while a person who would benefit from
treatment dies.
Few could argue with the ultimate goal of
evaluating consequences, which is to promote
human welfare by maximizing benefits to as many
people as possible. Despite its popularity,
Utilitarianism suffers from serious deficiencies.

Of course it is very hard to determine how much
pleasure an action will actually give. Also, to find the
total amount of pleasure, we need to consider all
individuals that are involved and add up their pleasures.
But how do we quantify pleasure? And has the pleasure
of one person the same value as the pleasure of
another? Also, how do we decide whether one action
gives more pleasure than another? Answering these
questions is difficult. Even the clever John Stuart Mill did
not have an answer, although he did have an opinion. He
stated that certain pleasures (like intellectual fulfillment)
are by nature more valuable than other pleasures (like
physical desires).

Sometimes identifying possible consequences can
be difficult or impossible. Many different groups
may be affected, unforeseen consequences may
develop, and so on. Even when consequences are
clear, evaluating their relative merits can be
challenging. Being objective is difficult because we
humans tend to downplay long-term risks in favour
of immediate rewards and to favour ourselves
when making decisions. Due to the difficulty of
identifying and evaluating potential costs and
benefits, Utilitarian decision makers sometimes
reach different conclusions when faced with the
same dilemma.
Ironically, one of the greatest strengths of
Utilitarian theory—its concern for collective
human welfare—is also one of its greatest
weaknesses. In focusing on what’s best for
the group as a whole, Utilitarianism discounts
the worth of the individual. The needs of the
person are subjugated to the needs of the
group or organization. This type of reasoning
can justify all kinds of abuse. In utilitarianism,
an engineer could also be asked to bend or
break a fundamental rule, because this will
result in the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people. For example, the
engineer has the opportunity to save 10
million euros on a design. But he knows that
this will later cause an accident killing 5
people. He argues that 10 million euros can
cause more happiness than 5 lives. To
compensate for this, rule utilitarianism has
been created. This kind of utilitarianism
recognizes and uses moral rules. It is thus
also similar to duty ethics.

View the following clip, entitled “Justice with
Michael Sandell” a Harvard Professor.
Episode 2. Time 3:35.
http://www.justiceharvard.org/watch/


This episode examines the use of cost-benefit
analysis (a utilitarian approach) by businesses to
determine where they should allocate funds,
minimize costs and maximize profits.
After watching the clip what would you say about
putting a price tag on human life?