TPQs (10/1) Group 1 Posts, Group 2 Responds

[Becko Copenhaver]

[beaub]

"A utilitarian believes that the things we normally take to be valuable—say, close personal bonds, knowledge, autonomy, or beauty—are valuable only because they typically lead, directly or indirectly, to enhanced well-being...By contrast, the non-utilitarian consequentialist holds that some things are valuable independently of their impact on well-being. Some of these things, like autonomy, say, may be things that are believed to be an intrinsically valuable component of of any human life" (11).

This segment of Shaw's article connects to the greater notions of intrinsic and instrumental value that we touched on earlier in the semester. According to this example, could we actually say that autonomy is only intrinsically valuable, for wouldn't we feel more free and independent, and therefore happier because of it? According to this objection, some things "are thought to be good for an individual, regardless of whether they promote the individual's well being" (11). Do you agree with this? Can something be "good" for us without providing us any sort of pleasure/happiness, even in the long run?

[Lisa Bell]

Consequencialism plays off of very basic human instincts. The idea is very simply to seek out the action in a situation that will ultimately lead to the best consequence. However, what is puzzling about the concept is the necessity to factor in the overall outcome of a situation. Shaw states that to decide on a course of action one must “take into account whatever value, if any, the action has in itself, not merely the value of its subsequent effects.” Meaning that one must look at the benefits of the action itself as well as the consequences of the action happening. This leads to a world of complicated “what ifs” that are hypothetical enough to make a person queasy.

Shaw mentions the idea that with consequencialism, in order to truly do the right thing, one must calculate what path of action has the best outcome. However, as with all normative theories, uncertainty of future events complicates this. Therefore, all someone can do is guess what the best outcome will be based on past experience.

What is difficult to understand is if someone does an action that they truly believe is going to result in the best consequences, but due to unforeseen factors it turns out to not have been the correct choice, consequencialism still says that they acted correctly. Moreover, according to consequencialism, that person should make the same choice if faced with the same situation in the future. Additionally, if someone does something that according to the calculations will not result in the best consequences, but ultimately it does, they have still acted incorrectly.

[Ian Dechow]

Is it ever possible for someone to assume that his or her action is the best and therefore producing the most goodness? It seems hard to assume anything unless we have a very strong basis for an assumption. Cosequentialism assumes its form (ie the use of consequences to determine right and wrong) is better than other theories but gives little evidence for this base assumption.  Why then should one use it?

[larr...@lclark.edu]

"The poin of consequentialism is to use the goodness or badness of an action to determine its rightness or wrongness. Circularity would threaten the theory if our notions of right and wrong were to infect our assessment of consequences as good or bad. Standard consequentialism thus assumes that we can identify states of affairs as good or bad, better or worse, without reference to normative principles of right and wrong."

Can the notion of good exist without the reference of morally right or wrong actions? What form does good take? Can one be a pure consequentialist and live in the modern world? 

[sbea...@lclark.edu]

Utilitarianism attempts to calculate the expected goodness or badness that results from a particular action.  This requires that people assign positive and negative values to expected consequences of actions, and to compare and contrast those predicted values in deciding which act will bring about the most “good.” Is it actually possible to assign and compare values of a possible consequence with values of all other possible consequences in a given situation? How do we go about assigning value to a human life versus the life of a tree? Is it ever possible to fully grasp the ramifications of our actions, and if so, is there enough time to do so before its too late to act?

[rh...@lclark.edu]

There certainly something to the idea that autonomy has intrinsic value.  By giving people autonomy we leave them to make their own decisions to let them make their own decisions, and people generally believe that they are better at maximizing their own happiness than an outside group.  This concept is problematic though since we live in a society that both values freedom but also has laws regarding helmets, seat belts, and drugs.  Society clearly likes the idea of autonomy but is very willing to suspend that in name of someone's own good.  

For the objection I wouldn't necessarily use the word "good."  An idea like personal autonomy probably maximizes the wellbeing of most people but presents special problems to people like heroin addicts who have lost control of their lives.  In the sense personal autonomy is good for most people but not for all.  At the most I could say it's good rule of thumb.

[hdon...@lclark.edu]

"The point of consequentialism is to use the goodness or badness of an action to determine its rightness or wrongness." (191)

Shaw claims that good and bad have to relate back to right and wrong, for non consequentialists, but is there a way to consider morality when looking at consequentialism, or is one always separate from it?

[mblak...@lclark.edu]

Shaw addresses how demanding the consequentialist perspective would be if one were to follow it constantly, always thinking about the greater good and not the good of one's self. He states that "We must bear in mind the good that...is likely to come from permitting people to pursue, as much as possible, their own goals and plans, as well as it may bring better results..." (19). This could be true, what with the unpredictable chaos that often dictates world events. Shaw goes on to suggest that one could follow a less demanding form of consequentialism in which individuals would, "aid strangers when the benefit to them is great and the cost to ourselves is comparatively minor" (19). Does it seem like, at this point, Shaw is advocating more of a hedonistic perspective than a consequentialist one? Is he suggesting or admitting that such an altruism-based perspective would be too difficult to follow? 

[vmco...@lclark.edu]

Shaw describes actions as being right or wrong if the agent pursues the action which is, as certain as the agent can be, the action which will bring about the best consequences. He also states that "expected consequences, not actual consequences, are what counts." So if an agent did the "right action" yet got it worse result than another alternative action, the agent is still expected to continue doing that action, despite the fact that he knows it may bring about a worse consequence than another action. Anyone as intrigued as I am to refute this claim, and assert that doing the action that actually will bring about the best consequences would suffice (granted we already know from previous experience)?