Consequentialist Theories: Ethical Egoism & Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism

So, actions have consequences and according to consequentialism, those consequences determine the morality of that action. Now we just have to decide if that consequence was good or bad. In this field of consequentialism, there are two basic arguments about how to answer this question.

The first is utilitarianism. In this school of thought, actions are judged by how much they benefit the majority. This means that a moral consequence is one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people, or what philosophers call utility. So, a moral action is one that produces the most utility or is most beneficial.

Now, off the bat you may recognize that there are multiple ways to define this. Perhaps the greatest good could mean happiness or perhaps it means best chance at survival. The various possible ways to define 'greatest good' all should be taken into account with utilitarianism but in the end, that's what you're after: a moral action that benefits the most number of people.

Ok, let's look at an example. Say that you are walking down the street and you see an apartment building on fire. What's the right thing to do? What's moral? Well, since we're going with consequentialist ethics, we're going to judge you based on the results that come from your actions. And since this is utilitarianism, you need to find the action that will produce the greatest benefit.

So, option one: just keep walking. Consequence? People die, no one is saved, it's a tragedy. The consequence had a negative outcome for a majority of people, so the choice to ignore the fire was immoral. Option two: run into the burning building and try to rescue as many people as you can. Consequence? A few people are saved, so that was a moral action. Option three: call the fire department, then help out however you can. The fire department can save more people than you, so this action has the most positive consequence. Everyone lives, and you've made the most moral choice.

Now, obviously not every scenario is that simple. What if it's harder to predict how many people will be positively influenced? Or what if the action that produces the greatest good for the majority has a negative impact on you? Utilitarianism requires selflessness and foresight to figure out how your actions will affect the majority of the population, not just yourself.

In addition to advocating for the greater good, utilitarianism also opposes actions that cause harm. According to the harm principle, which was proposed by philosopher and utilitarian John Stuart Mill, you should be allowed to do what you want unless your actions cause harm to somebody else.

In an ideal world, the greatest good for the greatest number of people will also result in the least amount of harm to the least amount of people. But even when that happens, the morality of an action can still be questionable. For example, consider the following scenario, which is frequently used to highlight the potential weaknesses of the utilitarian approach to moral reasoning:

If five people will die without an organ transplant, why not harvest the organs of one healthy person in order to save the five patients?

In this scenario, the greatest good for the greatest number of people will result in the least amount of harm to the least number of people. However, it is unthinkable to take this action in the real world. Not only is it a violation of the harm principle, but it also violates a number of other moral principles as well.

So utilitarianism was one way to determine if the consequences of an action are moral or immoral. But it's not the only way. The opposite viewpoint is ethical egoism, in which morality is defined by the impact of an action on yourself. In this branch of consequentialism, you're not worried about the greater good, you're worried about your own self-interest. In this theory, it's less moral to risk your own life than to get killed saving someone else.

This may sound selfish but think about it. A lot of our legal system actually supports this; that's why you generally can't be arrested for choosing not to help out in an emergency. Also, egoists argue that self-interest actually creates a strong sense of responsibility to others. Here's the logic: if I don't help someone, then I get a bad reputation and no one else will help me. So it's actually in my best interest to consider other people's needs and to help them. In fact, you could argue that trying to help the most people is the best way to help myself since all of those people now think that I'm pretty swell.

Writer and philosopher Ayn Rand, who developed a conception ethical egoism and applied her philosophy to social issues, offered a critique of utilitarianism in her book Atlas Shrugged. Rand believed utilitarianism fails as a moral principle because it denies the individual. She argued that not only is self-interest good, but it should also be the guiding principle by which we live our lives. According to Rand, the prosocial tendencies of humans, particularly altruism, are 'diseases' imposed on us by society and cause us to betray our natural self-interest.

An ethical egoist like Ayn Rand strongly supports the idea of self-reliance versus reliance on government or charity. When presented with a statement like, 'we should make sure everyone is better off financially,' the ethical egoist would say that when each person looks out for their own financial self-interest, then everyone is self-reliant and better off, and therefore, we should all only look out for our own self-interest.

This argument seems logical, but when we consider that there are some people who may not be able to financially support themselves, such as children or individuals with illnesses or disabilities, we know that the end result is that some people will be better off financially and others will be worse off financially.

In philosophy, the question of how we define right and wrong is often asked. One way is through the results of our actions. Consequentialism judges the morality of actions based on the consequences they produce. A common expression of this idea is the end justifies the means, so whatever action is required to create a positive outcome is therefore moral. But how do we decide if the outcome was positive?

According to utilitarianism, an action is moral if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is all about the majority, the greater good. The opposite viewpoint is ethical egoism, in which the morality of an action is determined by the impact on yourself. The action that benefits you the most is the most moral.

Utilitarianism and ethical egoism may both present different ideas about how to judge morality, but at the end of the day, your actions still have consequences. Just like your parents taught you.

After viewing this lesson, you should be able to:

Excerpt from:

Consequentialist Theories: Ethical Egoism & Utilitarianism