The Map of Consequentialism

A comprehensive map of ten different independent distinctions within consequentialism, including the positions that utilitarianism takes and the reactions to those positions. Including the difference between Rule Consequentialism and Act Consequentialism, Actual and Expected Consequentialism, Hedonistic Consequentialism and Pluralistic Consequentialism and much more!

Sponsors: João Costa Neto, Dakota Jones, Joe Felix, Prince Otchere, Mike Samuel, Daniel Helland, Dennis Sexton, Yu Saburi, Mauricino Andrade, Will Roberts and √2. Thanks for your support!

Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!

Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!

[fountainovaphilosopher]

-Expected
-Hedonistic
-Particular
-Act (I've my own thoughts on the dynamics but act prevails)
-Maximizing
-Agent relative
-Overall
-if I understood correctly, evaluative (though i would need an example)
-makes no difference whether it's egalitarian or hierarchical (this one ties a lot into universal/particular distinction)
-makes no difference if it's additive or average, but let's say additive

Signed,

-Ethical egoist

[cm-r]

I find it bothersome that it takes so much energy to classify philosophical stances. There should be some easier way to catalogue them. Could we not create standardized « philosophy trees » as hierarchies that detail stances by exactly which propositions are yes/no? Or something of that essence? Does this exist?

[SEAL]

Is there a type of consequentialism with a set of parameters? Kind of like how a republic is a democracy where the people vote on laws but with a constitution naming a bunch of things you cannot do under any circumstance, a type of veto.
I think I would be closest to a system where you run off of a expected consequential system for most things but there are certain deontological rules that cannot be broken even if it leads to more happiness. I think this might be similar to a rule based moral system but let me know. Similar to the idea of a founding document, it seems like a good way to protect the individual from the "greater good".

[hjge]

The problem I have with consequentialism is WHEN you aught to make a judgement. Which is also closely related with how you determine cause and effect to begin with, and how is one to know if something is the actual cause/effect of something else.

[xBogdan]

Thats a record number of likes in this channel in first day, LOL. Thanks for the video )

[russellwhisenant]

I think actual consequentialism in general puts and unrealistically high epistemic burden on agents. He this is particularly true of actual, universal, maximizing consequentialism. For the costume example you would have to consider the people who produced and sold that costume, the people who produced and sold other costumes you could have worn, all the ways you could have used that money if you went without a costume or in a cheaper costume, and if there are pictures how those pictures will affect every person who sees them until the end of time. If an actual consequentialist is willing to bite the bullet and say that yes this is an epistemic burden no one could realistically meet, but that's just the way it is then they would be committed to taking on extreme epistemic burdens.
In this context a desire consequentialist would not have good grounds for exempting the desires of those who are not present or who won't find out. Simplifying epistemic burdens just isn't much of an argument when you're already committed to an epistemic burden you can never actually meet.

[littlebigphil]

What would the type be of consequentialism that makes a distinction between maximizing utility and minimizing suffering? I can't accurately classify them, because I don't understand their distinction.

[eammonful]

Very good video, but can you explain a little bit more how average would actually differ from total. If you are considering the same amount of affect and the same number of parties that the effect is distributed over, then they should come out to be the same. Is it median rather than mean or something like that?

[luls]

From a scale 0-10 the amount of care I give to most people is like 0.001, because most people have a very insignificant impact on my life, but it's never completely 0. So by definition I agree with the Universal and not the Particular? I'm an egoist btw.

Edit: I might have exaggerated a bit, it's probably not most people, but I think at least some people have next to no impact to my life, so it makes no difference to my question.

[luls]

What's the difference between Rule and Expected? What's the difference between Actual and Direct? It seems to me that one could not say they care about the Expected outcomes and the Direct results of the outcomes at the same time as well as one could not say that they care about the Rules that claim something is generally good and at the same time look only at what's Actually good.

[JohnVKaravitis]

Why did you choose the moniker "Carneades"? 11:10 "Any of these criteria can be taken independently, you don't... that none of these particular criteria entail each other.'' SO, this is NOT a map, but a checklist of criteria. You're welcome.

[ChristianGonzalezCapizzi]

I think you should be more careful about saying a certain moral theory's verdict is either "good" or "bad". Good and bad are terms used to describe a value theory. But in normative ethics, especially consequentialism, the verdicts are classified as "right" or "wrong."

[luls]

I think I disagree with both improvement and maximizing. Sometimes both options are bad and one has to pick one's poison.

[kmdash]

Could a consequentialist philosophy also be absolutist?

[tylerdarroch]

Thank you for making this video. My personal idea of consequentialism would be a combination of Particular and privileged consequentialism. In particular consequentialism i would be concerned with my nation and folk and whats best for both however i add privileged consequentialism as a means of hierarchy based on intellect and contribution to said nation and folk.