For instance, what if we had a duty not to lie, but we knew that lying might protect our friends from getting hurt or even save lives in some extreme circumstances? You would have to reject any circumstantial situations that may have positive impact even though the action was wrong. The Ethics of Consequences Consequentialists contend that you can determine whether an act is ethical or moral based solely on the consequences of the action. In contrast with Kant, who believed that our intentions mattered and that strictly following universal rules was most important, consequentialist thinkers argue that the only thing that matters is the results. The primary proponents of consequentialism were also known as utilitarians. A leading advocate of this approach to ethics, the English philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.” In other words, Mill believed the best action is the one that increases the greatest happiness for everyone involved. Mill’s argument, however, does not lead us to conclude that we should play video games or watch our favorite television shows all day simply because they increase our happiness. Instead, Mill makes a difference between higher and lower forms of happiness and asserts that we must aim at higher forms: improving ourselves and society. In practice, utilitarianism requires us to anticipate and measure the pleasure and pain that certain actions might cause and choose the path that maximizes the greatest good. There seem to be advantages to being a utilitarian. After all, like Kant’s philosophy, utilitarianism seems to offer a certain clarity. We can weigh the pros and cons of particular actions and reach a definitive answer on what to do. As long as we minimize pain or achieve the greatest amount of good for the most people involved it is the right thing to do. However, on the other hand, utilitarianism presents real difficulties. First, ethical decision-making is not always as clean as a formulaic math problem that you can plug pros and cons into. We can’t always agree on what the costs and benefits are for all actions. -
How do you really know what maximizes the highest level of happiness for all individuals who might be affected by your actions? Is it actually possibly to know all of the scenarios for maximizing happiness and minimizing pain that could result from your decision before you make it?
And finally, utilitarianism often disregards personal connections or meanings in situations. A precursor to Mill, William Godwin once asked what the ethically right decision to make was should one come across a burning building and have to choose between saving the Archbishop of Canterbury (a very
51