Deck 5: Consequentialism

Question 1

Talk about:
-Absolute rule

Answer 1

a rule that may never permissibly be broken.

Question 2

Talk about:
-Act utilitarianism

Answer 2

the moral theory that says that an action is morally required just because it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstances.

Question 3

Talk about:
-Decision procedure

Answer 3

a method for reliably guiding our decisions, so that when we use it well, we make decisions as we ought to.

Question 4

Talk about:
-Intrinsically good

Question 5

Talk about:
-Moral community

Question 6

Talk about:
-Optimific

Question 7

Talk about:
-Optimific social rule

Question 8

Talk about:
-Principle of utility

Question 9

Talk about:
-Rule consequentialism

Question 10

Talk about:
-Standard of rightness

Question 11

Talk about:
-Supererogation

Question 12

Talk about:
-Vicarious punishment

Question 13

Most utilitarians regard the principle of utility as a

A) standard of rightness.
B) decision procedure.
C) Both a and b
D) Neither a nor b

Question 14

Explain what you take to be the strongest version of consequentialism. What does it count as intrinsically good and bad and how does it understand the balance of good over bad? Explain some advantages of your theory over other versions of consequentialism.

Question 15

What implications does utilitarianism have for our treatment of nonhuman animals? Do you find utilitarians' conclusions about animals plausible? If so, why? If not, how would you respond to their arguments?

Question 16

Describe a case in which utilitarianism seems to require that someone behave unjustly. Do you think utilitarianism nonetheless gives the correct moral verdict in this case? Why or why not? How might a utilitarian reply to the objection that the theory wrongly licenses injustice?

Question 17

Write an essay comparing and contrasting act utilitarianism with rule consequentialism. Define each theory and then explain why rule consequentialism is often thought to provide a solution to the problem of injustice that faces act utilitarianism. What objection do act utilitarians often level against rule consequentialism? Which theory do you think is preferable, and why?

Question 18

The Greatest Happiness Principle holds that

A) actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.
B) happiness is the only thing that is valuable, the reverse of happiness is the only thing that is not valuable.
C) this is the best of all possible worlds because in it is the greatest possible happiness.
D) the greatest happiness comes from praising God and the greatest pain comes from rejecting God.

Question 19

According to Mill, which of the following are desirable ends?

A) Pleasure
B) Freedom from pain
C) Both a and b
D) Neither a nor b

Question 20

On Mill's view, whose happiness is relevant for determining right conduct?

A) Only the agent's own happiness
B) Only the agent's own happiness and the happiness of the agent's loved ones
C) Only the happiness of those who deserve to be happy
D) The happiness of all concerned

Question 21

Mill maintains that the business of ethics is to

A) tell us what our duties are.
B) determine the worth of agents.
C) identify good motives.
D) All of the above

Question 22

Mill maintains that, in the long run, the best proof of a good character is

A) popularity.
B) self-confidence.
C) performing good actions.
D) personal happiness.

Question 23

Mill argues that, according to the utilitarian doctrine, lying is

A) always morally permissible.
B) always morally impermissible.
C) usually morally permissible.
D) usually morally impermissible.

Question 24

According to Mill, what is the function of secondary moral principles?

A) To guide decisions via intermediate generalizations
B) To encode exceptionless rules of conduct
C) To determine who is virtuous and who is vicious
D) None of the above (They have no function.)

Question 25

Mill claims that secondary moral principles

A) have no exceptions.
B) sometimes conflict.
C) are of use only to the feeble minded.
D) All of the above

Question 26

According to Mill, when should the first principles of morality be appealed to in decision-making?

A) Always
B) Never
C) When secondary principles conflict
D) When happiness is irrelevant

Question 27

Explain the Greatest Happiness Principle. Then, come up with what you take to be the most compelling counterexample to it. Ultimately, does your example show that the Greatest Happiness Principle is false? Explain and defend your response.

Question 28

Mill insists that we should be impartial between our own happiness and the happiness of others. Come up with a case in which partiality seems justified. How do you think Mill would respond to your case? Do you agree with his response? Why or why not?

Question 29

Explain the objection to utilitarianism that it is too much to demand that people always be motivated by the greatest good. How does Mill respond to this objection? Do you find his response satisfying? Why or why not?

Question 30

Case Study
Imagine a small town in which there has recently been a rash of murders that all bear the marks of the same culprit. The police investigation has gone nowhere and the town's sense of order is starting to break down. Residents are demanding that the sheriff find a culprit and threatening to exact vigilante justice on perceived criminals until a culprit is found. Given that the real murderer is unknown, the sheriff sees that she can only prevent chaos and bloodshed by framing someone who likely is not the murderer.
The sheriff has someone in mind who could be easily framed-a local man, Jim, who has been in and out of jail for other violent crimes like assault and robbery. He has no family and no one in town would protest if he were to be locked up. Moreover, he is a believable culprit and so would be easy to frame. The sheriff is fairly sure that he is not actually the murderer, so she would likely be framing someone who, while not innocent overall, is innocent of these particular crimes. But she is not sure what else she can do to keep the peace.
-Should the sheriff frame Jim? Why or why not? What does this tell us about utilitarianism, and consequentialism more generally?

Question 31

Case Study
Imagine a small town in which there has recently been a rash of murders that all bear the marks of the same culprit. The police investigation has gone nowhere and the town's sense of order is starting to break down. Residents are demanding that the sheriff find a culprit and threatening to exact vigilante justice on perceived criminals until a culprit is found. Given that the real murderer is unknown, the sheriff sees that she can only prevent chaos and bloodshed by framing someone who likely is not the murderer.
The sheriff has someone in mind who could be easily framed-a local man, Jim, who has been in and out of jail for other violent crimes like assault and robbery. He has no family and no one in town would protest if he were to be locked up. Moreover, he is a believable culprit and so would be easy to frame. The sheriff is fairly sure that he is not actually the murderer, so she would likely be framing someone who, while not innocent overall, is innocent of these particular crimes. But she is not sure what else she can do to keep the peace.
-Does utilitarianism tell us that the sheriff is morally required to frame Jim? If so, is this a problem for utilitarianism? If not, how would the utilitarian explain this verdict?