Ethics Based on Consequences

Question

Utilitarians argue that since happiness is the end that all human beings seek, (1) action that maximizes human happiness is good and (2) the right action to choose (among options) is that one which contributes the most to total human happiness (or subtracts the least from total happiness).. Makes sense, yes? However, most of us would find the actions of the people of Omelas morally shocking although the actions might be justified as being utilitarian. 

Paraphrasing moral philosopher F. M. Kamm*, we could see the Omelas situation as calling for what is called a side-constraint on utilitairianism. A side-constraint is a factor that has priority over producing the greater good. Not causing harm to innocent people may be considered by some (non-strict utilitarians) as a side constraint on utilitarianism. For them, not harming innocents has priority in the sense that it is morally required even if it means not completely maximizing the overall good.

What other side-constraint(s) on consequentialism that you would call for (if any)? In other words, what values do you believe have priority over maximizing the overall happiness for everyone? 

Answer 1

A right to fairness would be a good one. Utilitarianism maintains that the best action is the one that brings about the most utility, not necessarily the most evenly distributed utility. One thought experiment which seeks to highlight this is called ¨the utility monster," and it goes like this imagine there was a creature who would gain more utility from eating all humans than humans would misery from being eaten. The monster also gains more utility from eating all of the humans than humans would have attained had they not been eaten. According to utilitarianism this is a moral act because the total utility is greater than it otherwise would have been. However, only one being is benefiting from the utility and it is benefiting at the cost of many other beings. Thus, it seems immoral despite the fact that it brings about more utility.

For more information on fairness you might want to look into John Rawls. Rawls argues that utilitarianism makes the mistake of taking what he calls "the God's eye view." That is, it attempts to see morality from an objective third party perspective. In short, Rawls thinks because God, or another third party viewer will not have to deal with the negative consequences of our moral system, that perspective is the wrong one to judge morality from. Instead, we should judge morality from the standpoint of a person who believes he or she may have to deal with the negative consequences of a moral system. To illustrate what this looks like Rawls devises a thought experiment called "the original position." The original position is a place where people decide what moral guidelines they want to live by while existing behind a "veil of ignorance." The veil of ignorance ensures that the people in the original position do not know if they will be the people who most benefit from the system they put in place or if they will be the people who least benefit from the system they put in place. That way we can be sure they will create a fair system because if they do not they themselves may have to deal with the consequences.

If you want a more in depth analysis on Rawls I would suggest checking out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Or, if your really interested, you can read about his full theory in his book "A Theory of Justice."