Consequentialism

For lots of people, what makes a decision right or wrong depends on the outcome of that decision: does it increase or decrease the amount of happiness in the world?
This kind of thinking is typical of consequentialism: an ethical school of thought that says what makes an action good or bad is, you guessed it, the consequences.
For a deeper dive, visit ethics.org.au/... and subscribe to our free 5-week introduction to ethics course.
//
ABOUT THE ETHICS CENTRE
The Ethics Centre is an independent not-for-profit that advocates for a more ethical society.
A team of innovators, thought leaders and conveners of people and ideas, we deliver a range of services including original programs, consulting, leadership and an ethics helpline designed to bring ethics to the centre of everyday life.
Across our work, we aim to diagnose, prevent and cure the sources of ethical failure, to increase ethical literacy through education and information, and develop tools to empower good decision making.
The Centre’s programs are recognised for stimulating public awareness and understanding, creating a space for open, honest and often difficult conversations.
This year marks the 30th anniversary of The Ethics Centre, and we’re committed to educating, engaging and informing for a better world for the 30 years to come.
Watch more videos in our playlist: ow.ly/1G3b50yw5MR
//
SOCIAL MEDIA
Follow us at the links below:
Facebook: / ethicscentre
Twitter: / ethics_centre
Instagram: / ethics_centre
LinkedIn: / the-ethics-centre
//
Copyright Notice
© The Ethics Centre 2020.
This video may be freely used by individuals for their own personal use and, to the extent not already permitted by relevant copyright law, by non-profit educational institutions for educational purposes.
Permission is granted on the condition that attribution is given to The Ethics Centre, and a link is included to our website (www.ethics.org.au).
Please contact The Ethics Centre ([e-mail]) if you would like to use or license our materials in any other way.

[@spikemoody1757]

A very interesting aspect of philosophy

[@c4call]

This seems to be a horrible description of consequentialism or even utilitarianism. The fact that everyone who thinks the Avenue education of philosophy wants to describe either of those 2 philosophies as being separated from the person making the decision, just blows my mind. The goodness of an act is determined not by whether or not it makes the world a better place for whoever. The goodness or badness of an action is determined by the consequences it has on the life of the person making The Choice. Everyone's perception is different. Your perception of someone else's actions may be that their actions are making your life a living hell, but as far as they are concerned their actions are good because they benefit them. It's a basic fact of reality that we can't even get out of the argument of subjectivity. It is inviolable and inevitable that you will hit a brick wall of subjectivity when it comes to determining the goodness or badness of an action. You can't say that the largest number of lives saved is what makes the world a better place. Maybe fewer people living is actually better for the world or at least better for you. Maybe what would make the world a better place is more mouths to feed, or maybe what would make the world a better place for you to live in is fewer mouths defeat but with higher quality of character and intelligence.

[@camden7806]

Well said

[@logicalconclusion5327]

You have highlighted the biggest issue with all 'pure' consequentialist ethical frameworks (and almost all normative ethics categories). Essentially, they have to account for the 'final say'. In other words, whether one places the ability to evaluate and create moral 'oughts' (i.e., normative propositions) in the individual or in society, at the foundation of these systems is the question: who, or what, has the ultimate authority to decide and to morally obligate what is right and wrong? If it is the individual, by what authority is any specific individual's moral rule qualitatively superior to another's when there is moral conflict between the two? If it is society, by what authority is any specific culture and society superior to another? Some may say that it is the right of whoever 'wins' (by persuasion, force, or whatever means), however, that doesn't answer the question -- why does that make that individual or society have any more say on what is morally good or bad and, simultaneously, morally binding (i.e., true and an actual moral rule)? They might say that X is good and since they 'won' I might agree or oblige, but does that make it true?

[@victorudu.1713]

waoo your explanation is so easy to understand. thanks a million.

[@cattycatalina]

Thank you for this! Beautifully explained! A huge help :0 }

[@edwebb5467]

This and utilitarianism is ruining the world.

[@amunajr.1383]

U r so underrated😳 #RESPECT

[@illianawright3962]

So this is kind of like, “think before you act”. Or “use you head not your heart”

[@KingArthur13th]

So Consequentialism is essentially "the ends justify the means"?

[@b.t.3406]

Interesting philosophy. Pity it ignores the fact that some people (cultures) see pain as pleasurable in some cases or feel that pleasure is more pleasurable because of pain.

[@Cardinal-Roy-Thanks-You]

Jeannette Pa (Taylor Swift (Lia..B))

[@maearianboter6052]

thank you and God Bless!

[@photon4269]

Can you make one on Rights based approach

[@LOGICZOMBIE]

OBRA MAESTRA