Does the end justify the means?

In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the English saying, "the end justifies the means", meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.

Consequentialism is the view that morality is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences. Here the phrase “overall consequences” of an action means everything the action brings about, including the action itself. For example, if you think that the whole point of morality is

(a) to spread happiness and relieve suffering, or

(b) to create as much freedom as possible in the world, or

(c) to promote the survival of our species, then you accept consequentialism.

Consequentialism is based on two principles:

• Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act
• The more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act

It gives us this guidance when faced with a moral dilemma:

• A person should choose the action that maximises good consequences

And it gives this general guidance on how to live:

• People should live so as to maximise good consequences

Different forms of consequentialism differ over what the good thing is that should be maximised.

• Utilitarianism states that people should maximise human welfare or well-being (which they used to call 'utility' - hence the name).
• Hedonism states that people should maximise human pleasure.
• Other forms of consequentialism take a more subtle approach; for example stating that people should maximise the satisfaction of their fully informed and rational preferences.

In practice people don't assess the ethical consequences of every single act (that's called 'act consequentialism') because they don't have the time.

Instead they use ethical rules that are derived from considering the general consequences of particular types of acts. That is called 'rule consequentialism'.

• So, for example, according to rule consequentialism we consider lying to be wrong because we know that in general lying produces bad consequences.

Results-based ethics produces this important conclusion for ethical thinking:

• No type of act is inherently wrong - not even murder - it depends on the result of the act

This far-fetched example may make things clearer:

• Suppose that by killing X, an entirely innocent person, we can save the lives of 10 other innocent people
• A consequentialist would say that killing X is justified because it would result in only 1 person dying, rather than 10 people dying
• A non-consequentialist would say it is inherently wrong to murder people and refuse to kill X, even though not killing X leads to the death of 9 more people than killing X

Consequentialism is controversial. Various nonconsequentialist views are that morality is all about doing one's duty, respecting rights, obeying nature, obeying God, obeying one’s own heart, actualizing one’s own potential, being reasonable, respecting all people, or not interfering with others—no matter the consequences.

[Most terrorist outfits use this type of argument to justify their deeds]

Consequentialism

Introduction to ethics: Consequentialism

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy