PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Consequentialism [HD]

In this Wireless Philosophy video, Julia Driver (Washington University in St. Louis) introduces us to the ethical theory of consequentialism.

Help us caption & translate this video!

[mzmzunderstood]

I just want to say that the comments here have given me a better understanding than the video did. I love the analogies...that really helps me. Thanx guys!!!

Wow. This one fell off the end. It's almost like someone trimmed the last 5 minutes of the video

[ccall]

I immediately got a bewildered look on my face when she compared one person to 5 people Being saved to demonstrate consequentialism. I think anyone who believes that consequentialism is true and right as a philosophy believes so because they fully understand that life is too complicated. On the other hand, from what I've been able to discern over the course of my life is that anyone who disagrees with consequentialism, they are the ones who oversimplify things. You cannot demonstrate the philosophy of consequentialism by comparing one person to 5 people and saying that consequentialism is like utilitarianism in that the goal is to make the world a better place. Better for who? What if that 1 person that need Ed a larger dose was your own brother or sister Or apparent? And the other 5 people were complete strangers??And that is still an incredibly simplistic comparison. Because you don't know if it is they're sibling compared to strangers, how much do they like their sibling? How beneficial to their life is their siblings life? Does their sibling make their life a living hell? Maybe the other 5 people could be complete strangers come up but their sibling is such a terrible person to them, that they would rather save 5 strangers than their own sibling . The possibilities are absolutely endless.

[grimfate]

One thing I'm not sure about is if the "consequences" includes the cost/reward of making the decision, as opposed to just the cost/reward of having enacted the decision. For example, take the cliched philosophical hypothetical of a runaway train heading towards 5 people tied to the tracks, and you are given the option to switch the train onto a track that has only 1 person tied to it. Now, imagine that I have to kill 5 people to get the opportunity to switch the track. So, now, deciding to switch the track means the train only kills 1 person, but a total of 6 people have died.

Why I am confused on this is the use of the term "the ends justify the means", which seems to imply that the means (what I have to do to get a certain outcome) are separate from the ends (the outcome of my actions). Have I misunderstood something with this phrase or its use?

I feel that "consequence" should be the entire outcome of a decision. I mean, for example, if you are buying dinner, the level of satisfaction you will get (satiation, taste, quality, etc.) might be tied to how much you spend, but if your finances are not in good shape, then overspending will likely end badly. But that sounds like balancing the means and the ends, which doesn't sound like it's consequentialism. Although, I guess you could consider each step (how much to spend, what to spend that amount on, etc.) as a decision, and then add all the consequences together... Hmm... Philosophy is hard lol

[royalewithcheese]

more confused now that i watched this...

[CAbabylon]

A response to the issue about maximizing consequentialism being difficult is, so what? No one said it's easy to be morally praiseworthy. That is no argument against the validity of consequentialism at all.

[SeanTheOriginal]

I got a better example:
Henry Tandey, - a murderer hired by the state to kill citizens of another country - a soldier in WW1, allegedly could have killed Hitler as a young man. The act of NOT killing Hitler when he had the chance resulted in The Holocaust.
Had he murdered Hitler, which most consider murder to be "bad", it would have resulted in nearly 20 million people not being killed. What Henry thought was "good" had the consequences of so many innocent people be murdered.


This is assuming Hitler was _actually_ the person in the story. It's hard to tell when it comes to fascist, dictatorial murderers if they're telling the truth. /s

[AnonyMous-ogct]

From my perspective, the only problem with consequentialism is its failure to acknowledge that humans generally cannot perfectly predict the consequences of their actions. Morality is more like Poker than Solitaire. You can't know for sure that getting all your chips in with pocket aces pre-flop will guarantee that you will win the pot, but it's an optimal move assuming you get called regardless of a lone outcome because if you manage to find yourself in repeat situations over and over, you will come out a millionaire in the long run. That is to say, the outcome of repeating the action over and over has a high expected value, even if a singular outcome of an effort might cause you to lose all your chips.

The acknowledgment of probabilities and navigating unknowns leads to the categorical guides in the presence of unknowns just like the Theory of Poker which would be useless if we played Poker with our hands turned face-up (if unknowns became knowns). From this, I derive a notion of "probabilistic consequentialism". The degree to which categorical vs. consequentialist modes of thought are valid depends on the individual's ability to correctly predict the full, long-term consequences of their actions which is never going to be entirely perfect because that would require an omnipotent level of knowledge.

I don't know why philosophers often fail to acknowledge unknowns in their moral dilemmas. Certainly, it is not moral for me to attempt to rescue a drowning person if I knew for certain that it was guaranteed that we'd both die in the process. That would be about as moral as for me to jump off a cliff. We at least have to factor in the estimated probabilities of successfully being able to rescue the person to get anywhere. If we had omnipotent knowledge that there's a 0% chance of success, then there's no point behind the attempt.

[jonathansmith]

You're presenting the weakest form consequentialism and utilitarianism. Very few philosophers these days take act consequentialism seriously, and instead opt for rule consequentialism. Rule consequentialists do not hold the idea that we should just arbitrarily "do enough" and then whatever, your fine if you feel you've done enough. Rule consequentialists believe in living a life in alignment to principle's and rules that yield good consequences. For example, one of these rules (certainly among others) might be living your life in accordance to the non-aggression principle. The rule consequentialist is also absolutely not required to say that it is rationally imperative to maximize pleasure at all costs, constantly going one step further and further, as many can clearly see the pragmatic problems and tragedy of the commons issues that would likely ensue. Which would lead to widespread failure of pleasure, and therefor not rational.

[Susanmugen]

Satisficing consequentialism sounds good enough for now. "You will know them by their fruit, but not every strawberry has to be the best of your life".

[katherinecourtney]

anyone? help me what are the consequences of impartiality? this is my topic for the ethics sub.

[dingsda]

Couldnt keeping a promise just be included into the good? Surely there is a point at which other factors outweigh the moral significance of a promise, meaning that it could fit right into the moral calculus.

I see no problem in how demanding consequentialism can be, for several reasons:
first, if you agree with the premises then you should agree with the conclusion no matter how demanding. second, why do we have to label only the option that maximizes good consequences *the* right action? I propose that actions can be right to different degrees, meaning that donating some money is moral while donating more money is even more moral.

[GeneralArmorus]

It may be demanding but I have no issue justifying some egoism. After all, gotta take care of thyself so that you can maximize good.

[seanivins]

great video, thanks for breaking it down for us!

[mileskeller]

Please define "enough" in reference to satisfying consequentialism.

[jeffceccola]

Simple question. What if there is a large group of people who gain immense pleasure from genocide and cannibalism? Do you allow them to develop and thrive as a subculture? They could claim they are depopulating, reprocessing and recycling humans as a tool in their culture to fight global warming.

[afrofeast]

The best teacher uses simple language to explain complex things. Here you failed!

[margooka]

the comment section is lit

EDIT: also good vid thank u :^)

[nodoctoryet]

The pinky promise paradigm sounds more like a Deontological approach. Then again everything is relative :)

[stinkleaf]

No matter how you slice it, a paradox is a consequence of all rational thought that aims to govern human morality.