Negative consequentialism
 | This article, Negative consequentialism, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. Please check to see if the reviewer has accidentally left this template after accepting the draft and take appropriate action as necessary.
Reviewer tools: Inform author |
Negative consequentialism is a version of the ethical theory consequentialism, which, according to a philosophy professor, is "one of the major theories of normative ethics."[1] Like other versions of consequentialism, negative consequentialism holds that moral right and wrong depend only on the value of outcomes.[2] That is, for negative and other versions of consequentialism, questions such as "what should I do?" and "what kind of person should I be?" are answered only based on consequences. Negative consequentialism differs from other versions of consequentialism by giving greater weight in moral deliberations to the badness than the goodness in outcomes.[3]
A specific type of consequentialism is utilitarianism, which says that the consequences that matter are those that affect well-being.[4] Consequentialism is broader than utilitarianism in that consequentialism can say that the value of outcomes depend on other things than well-being; for example, justice, fairness, and equality.[5] Negative utilitarianism is consequently a form of negative consequentialism.[6] Much more has been written explicitly about negative utilitarianism than directly about negative consequentialism, although since negative utilitarianism is a form of negative consequentialism, everything that has been written about negative utilitarianism is by definition about a specific (utilitarian) version of negative consequentialism. Similarly to how there are many variations of consequentialism and negative utilitarianism, there are many versions of negative consequentialism, for example negative prioritarianism and negative consequentialist egalitarianism.[7]
Philosophy professor Clark Wolf defends "negative consequentialism as a component of a larger theory of justice."[8] Walter Sinnott-Armstrong interprets Bernard Gert's moral system as a "sophisticated form of negative objective universal public rule consequentialism."[9]
See also
Citations
- ^ Peterson 2013, p. vii: "Consequentialism is one of the major theories of normative ethics."
- ^ Bykvist 2009, p. 19: "The whole family of utilitarian theories is captured by the equation: Utilitarianism = Consequentialism (nothing but the values of outcomes matter for the rightness of actions) + Welfarism (nothing but well-being matters for the value of outcomes)."
- ^ Animal Ethics, Inc. & Negative Consequentialism: “Negative consequentialism is the version of consequentialism that focuses on reducing harms. It has this focus because it assumes that there aren’t things of positive intrinsic value, while there are things of negative intrinsic value. Therefore, in deciding on whether to act in a particular way, a negative consequentialist would consider what harms it would cause, eliminate, increase or decrease.” Arrhenius & Bykvist 1995, p. 115: “Our point of departure was the firm intuition that unhappiness and suffering have greater weight than happiness. By taking this stand we revealed ourselves as members of the negative utilitarian family.” Ord 2013: “NU [negative utilitarianism] comes in several flavours, which I will outline later, but the basic thrust is that an act is morally right if and only if it leads to less suffering than any available alternative. Unlike Classical Utilitarianism, positive experiences such as pleasure or happiness are either given no weight, or at least a lot less weight. (In what follows, I use the word 'happiness' to stand in for whatever aspects of life might be thought to have positive value).”
- ^ Bykvist 2009, p. 19.
- ^ Hooker, Mason & Miller 2000, p. 2: “Other consequentialist theories take other things to be valuable, for example justice, fairness, and equality.”
- ^ Animal Ethics, Inc. & Negative Consequentialism: “One form of negative consequentialism is negative utilitarianism.”
- ^ Animal Ethics, Inc. & Negative Consequentialism: “According to negative consequentialism such as negative prioritarianism, negative utilitarianism, and negative consequentialist egalitarianism...”
- ^ Wolf 2009, p. 360: "For a defence of a negative consequentialism as a component of a larger theory of justice, see Wolf (1999)." That is, see Wolf 1999.
- ^ Sinnott-Armstrong 2002, p. 147.
References
- Animal Ethics, Inc. "Negative Consequentialism".
- Arrhenius, Gustaf; Bykvist, Krister (1995). "Future Generations and Interpersonal Compensations Moral Aspects of Energy Use". Uppsala Prints and Preprints in Philosophy. 21.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Bykvist, Krister (2009). Utilitarianism: A Guide for the Perplexed. Bloomsbury Publishing.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Hooker, Brad; Mason, Elinor; Miller, Dale E. (2000). Morality, Rules, and Consequences: A Critical Reader. Rowman & Littlefield.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Ord, Toby (2013). "Why I'm Not a Negative Utilitarian".
{{cite web}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Peterson, Martin (2013). The Dimensions of Consequentialism: Ethics, Equality and Risk. Cambridge University Press.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2002). "Gert contra Consequentialism". In Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Robert Audi, eds., Rationality, Rules, and Ideals: Critical Essays on Bernard Gert's Moral Theory. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 145–63.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Wolf, Clark (1999). "Health Care Access, Population Ageing, and Intergenerational Justice". In H. Lesser, ed., Ageing, Autonomy, and Resources (PDF). new York: Ashgate Publishers. pp. 212–45.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Wolf, Clark (2009). "Intergenerational Justice, Human Needs, and Climate Policy". In Axel Gosseries and Lukas H. Meyer, eds., Intergenerational Justice (PDF). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 349–78.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)