Teleological Ethics: Morality is
determined by the consequences of actions
Morality is a means to an end: to know what we
ought to do, we must first know what is valuable
Hedonism:
value (good) is pleasure/happiness
 Egoism: my happiness is the greatest good
 Utilitarianism: the good is the greatest
amount of happiness for the greatest number
of people (or perhaps sentient beings)
Consequentialist Ethical Theories
Egoism:
the good is whatever promotes
my long-term interests
Epicurus
341-270 BC
Hedonism: the good is pleasure
Pursue pleasures not mixed with pain (beauty,
prudence, honor, justice, courage, knowledge);
satisfy natural desires (food, sleep), avoid vain
desires (fame, fashion)
Self-realization:
develop harmoniously all
our capacities (Plato, Aristotle, Bradley)
Objections to Egoism
Egoism
cannot resolve conflicts of interest
(which moral theories should do)
Egoism allows for no “moral point of view” of
an ideal observer who is impartial, informed,
and imaginatively identifies with those in the
situation
Egoist
response: no one is completely impartial,
nor should moral decisions be dispassionate
J. Bentham
(1748-1843)
Utilitarianism: the good is the
greatest amount of happiness for
the greatest number
J. S. Mill
(1808-73)
 Bentham: the hedonic calculus is based on the
intensity, duration, certainty, immediacy,
fecundity, purity, & number of people
 J. S. Mill: the quality of pleasures needs to be
considered, determined by competent judges
 Objection: this is elitist; why not use the criterion
for evaluating pleasures to judge morality itself?
Variations of Utilitarianism
 Act utilitarianism: we are obligated to do the
specific act that produces the greatest amount
of happiness (regardless of rules or justice)
Objections:
• consequence calculation is difficult
• the end justifies the means
 Rule utilitarianism: we should follow moral
rules that, when acted upon, generally produce
the greatest amount of happiness
Objections:
• what about when rules conflict?
• in some cases, why not exceptions?
Reply: then why have any theory at all?