Why not consequentialism — The Idea Notebook

When deciding whether an action is better or worse than another action there are three primary contenders for decision making criteria: either (a) some actions are inherently preferable/better/ideal/good/right/correct, or (b) the cause or (c) the consequences of some actions are what makes them preferable to others. (a) is found in the ethical systems of Christianity and Islam, where there are rules setting out which actions are good and bad, applicable in every situation in the same way. (b) is prevalent in ancient Greek and Confucian thinking. (c), where an action being right or wrong depends on the consequences - usually something like maximum happiness or minimum suffering - is relatively modern and now widespread due to affinities with capitalism.

In the natural world, if a population of animals or plants behaves in a way that statistically maximises their species’ rate of survival and reproduction then this is considered successful (vs. actions that would result in a lower proportion of the population surviving to reproduce). However this would rarely be categorised as consequentialist, or moral at all, because of the non-human domain. I eliminate these cases from the set under consideration but note it because humans are animals who have concerns relating to food, shelter, sleep, safety, etc. which can be considered to be within the moral domain. In the context of animalistic endeavours such as basic survival situations then consequentialism seems appropriate for humans to the extent that humans are animals striving to survive.

In a business environment, an action, or way of approaching some situation, is judged better than the alternative(s) to the extent that it better furthers that business's goals. Business is inherently concerned with consequences to the profit and loss ledger. If what follows an action is greater efficiency, more sales, fewer costs, less risk, improved reputation, etc. then it is a good action because it directly or indirectly furthers the goal of the business (i.e. profit) by causing certain consequences to occur that would not have occurred otherwise. Most actions in business involve both interactions between people and impacts on people, so these are moral in nature. Since a business is not a person, it is for the people working within the business to make moral choices encompassing the wider context of human life, including their own priorities and values, outside the P&L - i.e. they constrain the pure consequentialism that would otherwise pervade. Laws and regulations do this too, driven by wider society’s values.

In the context of living a good moral life, the theory that a particular action can be considered better or worse than another action on the basis of what consequences follow is logically inconsistent and disproved in light of these considerations:

1) Consequentialism is inherently circular. If the question we asked what “what is good?”, it is inadequate and unhelpful to answer “the action that leads to the most good”. It is not possible to frame consequentialism in a way that does not have this circularity baked in; some framings hide it better than others but it is always there at the core.
2) Even if we had a definition of good, it does not follow that we can measure and quantify good or bad. And a solution that has us quantifying and calculating one person’s suffering and pain , for example, against other peoples’ happiness before we can know whether an action is good or bad is clearly missing the mark.
3) If we do proceed with the suggested calculations, do we take into account that the butterfly can flap its wings and cause a storm the other side of the world? How about the echoes of Plato’s writings through the ages impacting philosophers today? Indirect impacts and impacts over large timescales can occur, so we need to draw a line somewhere for the theory to function - but drawing a line anywhere is to introduce an arbitrary limit (that others will object to).
4) If we do, nevertheless, draw a line to allow some degree of second order, third order and ever more indirect consequences to be weighed in the balance, and allow, or even require, consideration of effects days, years or millennia henceforth, then it seems we need a near-omniscient observer to arbitrate on what is good and what is bad, not any real person, who will inevitably lack either the necessary ability and/or perspective. In fact, in most cases where we ask ourselves if our actions were good or bad, we are lacking some information that consequentialist theories by necessity require we have. We are not all great savants however we like to think we can all choose good over bad, yet this is something that consequentialism does not allow us.
5) There are numerous apparent exceptions and difficult cases (variants on the trolley problem, killing tyrants scenarios, etc.) which will become clear after a few moment’s thought.

There appears to be an inevitable cycle that occurs, with society moving from one ethical system to another then back to the beginning: virtue ethics is adopted then people notice patterns like ‘just people never murder’ so a set of rules is written including things like ‘do not murder’ - the move to a deontological system; then there are apparent exceptions to those rules (e.g. killing tyrants or warmongers) - so the move to consequentialism occurs; but when people recognise that consequentialism needs significant modulation to constrain raw consequentialism (e.g. to limit the actions of businesses concerned only with their bottom line), generally in the form of virtue ethics (e.g. tech companies should demonstrate integrity, rebuild trust and be accountable if they cause harm; the wealthy should take on the mantle of stewardship and philanthropy; I prefer to buy free range eggs and fair-trade coffee and like companies that care for those in their supply chain rather than exploiting their supply chain, etc.), and realise there are fundamental flaws with the model, 3 collapses back to 1. This seems imminent, even overdue, and necessary.