The argument from religious experience is an argument for the existence of God. It holds that the best explanation for religious experiences
is that they constitute genuine experience or perception of a divine
reality. Various reasons have been offered for and against accepting
this contention.
According to materialism, nothing exists in a way that transcends material manifestation;
According to classical theism,
God endows human beings with the ability to perceive – although
imperfectly – religious, spiritual and/or transcendent realities through
religious, spiritual and/or transcendent experience.
To the extent that premise 1 is accepted, therefore, theism is more plausible than materialism.
As statements 2 to 4 are generally treated as uncontroversial, discussion has tended to focus on the status of the first.
Suggested reasons for accepting the premise
Some principal arguments that have been made in favor of the premise include:
Very substantial numbers of ordinary people report having had
such experiences, though this isn't to say that religious believers
aren't ordinary. Such experiences are reported in almost all known cultures.
These experiences often have very significant effects on people's
lives, frequently inducing in them acts of extreme self-sacrifice well
beyond what could be expected from evolutionary arguments.
These experiences often seem very real to the people involved, and
are quite often reported as being shared by a number of people. Although mass delusions are not inconceivable, one needs compelling reasons for invoking this as an explanation.
Swinburne
suggests that, as two basic principles of rationality, we ought to
believe that things are as they seem unless and until we have evidence
that they are mistaken (principle of credulity), and that those who do
not have an experience of a certain type ought to believe others who say
that they do in the absence of evidence of deceit or delusion
(principle of testimony) and thus, although if you have a strong
reason to disbelieve in the existence of God you will discount these
experiences, in other cases such evidence should count towards the
existence of God.
Suggested reasons for disputing the premise
On the other hand, the following reasons have been offered for rejecting the premise:
Religious experiences might be mis-firings of evolved mechanisms selected for very different reasons.
Some religious experiences are believed to have occurred only on the basis of religious texts such as the Bible, but these texts are of disputable historical accuracy.
It is conceivable that some claimed religious experiences are lies, possibly done for attention or acceptance.
Argument from inconsistent revelations:
Different people have had, or believed to have had, religious
experiences pointing to the truth of different religions. Not all of
these can be correct. Kraemer highlighted a link between arguments of
religious experience and self-righteousness (perception of superiority
over those who do not receive providence). In Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion, New Atheist author Sam Harris
assigns great value to religious experiences, but denies that facts
about the cosmos can rationally be inferred from them, highlighting how
different religions would give incompatible interpretations of the
experiences.
It has been argued that religious experiences are hallucinations
aimed at fulfilling basic psychological desires of immortality, purpose,
etc. Sigmund Freud, for example, considered God to be simply a psychological "illusion"
created by the mind, instead of an actual existing entity. This
argument can be based upon the fact that since we know about some
believers for whom this argument is correct (their reports for religious
experiences are nothing more than illusions), we assume that perhaps
all such reports may be illusions.
Alternate formulations
American analytic philosophers Alvin Plantinga and William Alston
developed arguments for accepting knowledge gained from religious
experience based on drawing analogies with knowledge gained from sense experience.
In both cases they apply their arguments to Christian religious
experiences, but accept that they may equally apply to other religious
experiences.
Plantinga argues that just as the knowledge gained from sense experience is regarded as properly basic despite being unsupported based on foundationalism in the mould of Descartes, religious experiences should be accepted as providing properly basic knowledge of God.
Alston argues that if sets of practices used to form beliefs
produce conclusions that are coherent over time both internally and with
other belief-forming practices, they should be accepted. He argues this
is the only way our ordinary beliefs are justified, and that by the
same criteria belief based on Christian religious experience is
justified.
The fossil fuels lobby includes paid representatives of corporations involved in the fossil fuel industry (oil, gas, coal), as well as related industries like chemicals, plastics, aviation and other transportation.
Because of their wealth and the importance of energy, transport and
chemical industries to local, national and international economies,
these lobbies have the capacity and money to attempt to have outsized
influence on governmental policy. In particular, the lobbies have been
known to obstruct policy related to environmental protection, environmental health and climate action.
Lobbies are active in most fossil-fuel intensive economies with
democratic governance, with reporting on the lobbies most prominent in
Canada, Australia, the United States and Europe, however the lobbies are
present in many parts of the world. Big Oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, TotalEnergies, Chevron Corporation, and ConocoPhillips are among the largest corporations associated with the fossil fuels lobby. The American Petroleum Institute is a powerful industry lobbyist for Big Oil with significant influence in Washington, D.C. In Australia, Australian Energy Producers,
formerly known as the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration
Association (APPEA), has significant influence in Canberra and helps to
maintain favorable policy settings for Oil and Gas.
Those
corporations that continue to invest in new fossil fuel exploration,
new fossil fuel exploitation, are really in flagrant breach of their
fiduciary duty because the science is abundantly clear that this is
something we can no longer do.
The energy lobby has a history of conflict with international interests and democratic global governance. According to the International Sustainable Energy Organization for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency the second World Climate Conference "was sabotaged by the USA and oil lobbies" whereupon UNISEO proceeded to set up a Global Energy Charter
"which protects life, health, climate and the biosphere from
emissions." According to the organization, these same "reactionary
energy lobby groups tried to boycott this Charter with the help from
oil- and coal-producing nations and succeeded to keep the energy transition out of the Rio Conference on Environment & Development (Earth Summit) in 1992, to continue this game in all Climate Conferences in Berlin, Kyoto, The Hague and Marrakech, where the USA boycotted the Kyoto protocol and still ignores the Charter."
It is estimated that during the 2010s the five biggest oil and gas
companies, and their industry groups, spent at least €251 million
lobbying the European Union over climate policies. Lobbying was also influential in Canada and Australia during the 2010s.
According to the UNFCCC, 636 fossil fuel lobbyists attended COP27.
Publicly, fossil-fuel corporations say that they support the Paris Agreement aiming to limit global warming below 2 °C in 2100. Internal reports of BP and Shell show that they have made contingency business models plans for warming of more than 3 °C of global warming in 2050.
Refineries owned by energy companies produce large amounts of air pollution.
Environmental impact of represented companies
As of 2015, many of the most influential members of the energy lobby have been among the top polluters in the United States, with Conoco, Exxon, and General Electric ranking in the top six. According to the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March 2002 by former attorneys at the Environmental Protection Agency, "companies like ExxonMobil and Sunoco keep reporting record profits while increasing emissions or more cancer causing chemicals from their refineries." The energy lobby has been criticized by environmentalists for using its influence to try to block or dilute legislation regarding global climate change.
Australia
In 2023 the Australian Energy Council lobbied against adding an environmental component to the National Electricity Objective. Reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism were lobbied against by Australian Energy Producers and the Minerals Council of Australia.
In the 2000 elections,
over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to
Republicans. In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million
to political campaigns, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In
the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats. Electric utilities also heavily favor Republicans; their contributions have recently ranged between $15–20 million. From 2003 to 2006, the energy lobby also contributed $58.3 million to state-level campaigns. By comparison, alternative energy interests contributed around half a million dollars in the same time period.
In 2022, approximately $125.05 million was spent by the fossil fuel industry to influence the government.
Governmental influence in the United States
The largest oil and gas companies that are sometime collectively referred to as Big Oil, and their industry lobbyist arm, the American Petroleum Institute (API), have spent large amounts of money every year on lobbying and political campaigns, and employ hundreds of lobbyists, to obstruct and delay government action to address climate change.
The fossil fuel lobby has considerable clout in Washington, D.C., and in other political centers, and have scored key political appointments in the administrations of U.S. President George W. Bush and President Donald Trump. President George W. Bush, like his father President George H. W. Bush, was a former oil industry senior executive, and President Trump's most senior cabinet official, his first Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was the CEO of one of largest of the Big Oil companies, ExxonMobil.
Fossil fuel industry interests spend many times as much on advancing
their agenda in the halls of power than do ordinary citizens and
environmental activists, with the former spending $2 billion in the
years 2000–2016 on climate change lobbying in the United States.
Big Oil companies often adopt "sustainability principles" that are at
odds with the policy agenda their lobbyists advocate, which often
entails sowing doubt about the reality and impacts of climate change and
forestalling government efforts to address them. API launched a public relationsdisinformation campaign with the aim of creating doubt in the public mind so that "climate change becomes a non-issue."
The fossil fuel industry spends large amounts of money on
American political campaigns, with about 2/3 of its political
contributions over the past several decades fueling Republican
politicians, and outspending many fold political contributions for renewable energy.
Fossil fuel industry political contributions reward politicians who
vote against environmental protections. According to a study published
by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, as voting by a member of Congress turned more
anti-environment, as measured by his/her voting record as scored by the League of Conservation Voters
(LCV), the fossil fuel industry contributions that this member of
Congress received increased. On average, a 10% decrease in the LCV score
was correlated with an increase of $1,700 in campaign contributions
from the industry for the campaign following the Congressional term.
Bush administration links to Big Oil
Various scandals involving prominent politicians have drawn attention to the close links between the energy lobby and the U.S. government, particularly the influence wielded by the energy lobby in the Bush administration. Lobbying continued after the Bush administration. In June 2005, documents emerged that revealed that the Bush administration had consulted Exxon regarding its stance on the Kyoto Protocol. According to The Guardian, "In briefing papers given before meetings to the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon
executives for the company's 'active involvement' in helping to
determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what
climate change policies the company might find acceptable." In November 2005, documents revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force met with executives from large oil companies, although chief executives of those companies denied involvement before the Senate Energy and Commerce committees. Environmentalists were not allowed access to the Energy Task Force's activities, which was responsible for developing a national energy policy. Oil companies also participated with Dick Cheney's task force in a discussion of Iraqi
oilfields, refineries and other energy infrastructure, and two charts
detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi
Oilfield Contracts." The documents are dated two years before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and six months before the 11 September attacks (9/11).
From
2011 to 2018, fossil fuel industry lobbyists recorded 11,452 lobbying
contacts with government officials. This is significantly higher than
other industries and averages out to six lobbying contacts per day.
Fossil fuel lobbyists contacted government officials five times more
than non-government environmental organizations.
Canada's Lobbyist Act does not require companies to disclose how
much money they spend on lobbying the Canadian government, and does not
require companies to register lobbyists that interact with government
officials who hold a title less than assistant deputy minister.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
(CAPP) is an advocacy group for energy companies in Canada. CAPP states
that their vision is to "enhance Canada's prosperity by enabling
responsible growth of Canada's upstream oil and natural gas industry." A
large portion of CAPP's membership is made up of oil refineries which
harvest oil from the oil sands of Alberta.
CAPP estimates that the oil sands industry will pay about $8 billion in
taxes over the next six years. The President of CAPP is Tim McMillan, who previously served as the Minister of Trade and Minister of Rural and Remote Health for the province of Saskatchewan.
In July 2020, French energy company Total SA
withdrew its membership from the Canadian association of petroleum
producers, which is a lobbying group that represents the oil and natural
gas producers in Canada. They withdrew after writing off US$7 billion
of oil sands assets in Alberta because of the high production costs.
Total SA stated they left CAPP because of a "misalignment between the
organization's public positions and those expressed in Total's climate
ambition statement announced in May", according to jwnenergy.com.
Government influence in Canada
In
2012 alone, 27 different energy companies and eight industry
associations engaged in lobbying the Canadian parliament in Ottawa. Enbridge and TransCanada, which are the two largest pipeline companies in Canada, met with cabinet ministers 52 times between 2011 and 2012. Since 2008, the Canadian Energy Pipelines Association (CEPA) "met with
public office holders 367 percent more times than the two major
Canadian automotive industry associations."
Included in the list of lobbyists for Big Oil in Canada are
former government employees. Over the last 10 years this list has
included Brenda Kenny, who served 10 years with the National Energy
Board, Paul Cheliak, a former economist for Natural Resources Canada,
and Bruce Carson, a convicted thief who served as the top policy analyst under prime minister Stephen Harper.
From 2000 to 2018, oil production in Canada increased by 80%, but
the royalties paid by the sector decreased by 63%. In addition, the
taxes paid by the oil companies was cut in half.
Canadian oil industry's influence abroad
Canada's
oil lobbyists spend money outside of Canada to further international
agreements. In 2015, lobbyists for TransCanada, the owner of the Keystone XL
pipeline project, spent $500,000 in a single legislative session
lobbying Nebraska state senators. While U.S. law forbids foreign
companies and individuals from making political contributions,
TransCanada officially made the contributions through its U.S.
subsidiary.
Europe
Industry influence in European Union policy
The five biggest oil and gas companies spent at least 251 million euros lobbying the European Union over climate policies since 2010. These lobbyists represent a total of 200 organizations. Some of these companies include BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Total.
There have been 327 high-level meetings between the EU and Big Oil and
Gas since 2014, this averages to more than one meeting a week. In the
EU, there are 200 lobbyists working on behalf of the top five oil and
gas companies. The European Green Deal
was the #1 most lobbied topic at the European Union in the first 100
days of the European Green Deal being implemented on 11 December 2019,
accounting for one-fifth of all high-level lobby meetings.
Oil industry lobbying in the United Kingdom
Shell gas company began lobbying the United Kingdom
government as early as 2011 to undermine European renewable energy
targets, according to The Guardian. They had several meetings with European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, Shell successfully lobbied Barroso and his predecessor, Jean-Claude Juncker,
to move away from the plan which originally had binding, carbon-cutting
goals for each individual member state. Shell argued instead for gas
expansion in Europe, because they believed it would save 500 billion
euros in a transition to a low carbon energy system.
Every advantage in the past is judged in the light of the final issue. — Demosthenes
In moral philosophy, consequentialism is a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgement about the rightness or wrongness
of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally
right act (including omission from acting) is one that will produce a
good outcome. Consequentialism, along with eudaimonism, falls under the broader category of teleological ethics, a group of views which claim that the moral value of any act consists in its tendency to produce things of intrinsic value. Consequentialists hold in general that an act is right if and only if
the act (or in some views, the rule under which it falls) will produce,
will probably produce, or is intended to produce, a greater balance of
good over evil than any available alternative. Different
consequentialist theories differ in how they define moral goods, with chief candidates including pleasure, the absence of pain, the satisfaction of one's preferences, and broader notions of the "general good".
Consequentialism is usually contrasted with deontological ethics (or deontology):
deontology, in which rules and moral duty are central, derives the
rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the character of the
behaviour itself, rather than the outcomes of the conduct. It is also
contrasted with both virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the act (or omission) itself, and pragmatic ethics, which treats morality like science: advancing collectively as a society over the course of many lifetimes, such that any moral criterion is subject to revision.
Some argue that consequentialist theories (such as utilitarianism) and deontological theories (such as Kantian ethics) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, T. M. Scanlon advances the idea that human rights,
which are commonly considered a "deontological" concept, can only be
justified with reference to the consequences of having those rights. Similarly, Robert Nozick
argued for a theory that is mostly consequentialist, but incorporates
inviolable "side-constraints" which restrict the sort of actions agents
are permitted to do. Derek Parfit argued that, in practice, when understood properly, rule consequentialism, Kantian deontology, and contractualism would all end up prescribing the same behavior.
Etymology
The term consequentialism was coined by G. E. M. Anscombe in her essay "Modern Moral Philosophy" in 1958.
However, the meaning of the word has changed over the time since
Anscombe used it: in the sense she coined it, she had explicitly placed J.S. Mill in the nonconsequentialist and W.D. Ross in the consequentialist camp, whereas, in the contemporary sense of the word, they would be classified the other way round. This is due to changes in the meaning of the word, not due to changes in perceptions of W.D. Ross's and J.S. Mill's views.
Classification
One common view is to classify consequentialism, together with virtue ethics, under a broader label of "teleological ethics". Proponents of teleological ethics (Greek: telos, 'end, purpose' + logos, 'science') argue that the moral value of any act consists in its tendency to produce things of intrinsic value, meaning that an act is right if and only if
it, or the rule under which it falls, produces, will probably produce,
or is intended to produce, a greater balance of good over evil than any
alternative act. This concept is exemplified by the famous aphorism, "the end justifies the means," variously attributed to Machiavelli or Ovid i.e. if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.
Teleological ethical theories are contrasted with deontological ethical theories, which hold that acts themselves are inherently
good or bad, rather than good or bad because of extrinsic factors (such
as the act's consequences or the moral character of the person who
acts).
Nature has placed mankind under the
governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them
alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we
shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other
the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They
govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think...
— Jeremy Bentham, The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) Ch I, p 1
In summary, Jeremy Bentham
states that people are driven by their interests and their fears, but
their interests take precedence over their fears; their interests are
carried out in accordance with how people view the consequences that
might be involved with their interests. Happiness, in this account, is defined as the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain. It can be argued that the existence of phenomenal consciousness and "qualia" is required for the experience of pleasure or pain to have an ethical significance.
Historically, hedonistic utilitarianism
is the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory. This
form of utilitarianism holds that what matters is to aggregate
happiness; the happiness of everyone, and not the happiness of any
particular person. John Stuart Mill,
in his exposition of hedonistic utilitarianism, proposed a hierarchy of
pleasures, meaning that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure is
more highly valued than the pursuit of other pleasures. However, some contemporary utilitarians, such as Peter Singer, are concerned with maximizing the satisfaction of preferences, hence preference utilitarianism. Other contemporary forms of utilitarianism mirror the forms of consequentialism outlined below.
In general, consequentialist theories focus on actions. However, this
need not be the case. Rule consequentialism is a theory that is
sometimes seen as an attempt to reconcile consequentialism with deontology, or rules-based ethics—and in some cases, this is stated as a criticism of rule consequentialism. Like deontology, rule consequentialism holds that moral behavior
involves following certain rules. However, rule consequentialism
chooses rules based on the consequences that the selection of those
rules has. Rule consequentialism exists in the forms of rule utilitarianism and rule egoism.
Various theorists are split as to whether the rules are the only determinant of moral behavior or not. For example, Robert Nozick held that a certain set of minimal rules, which he calls "side-constraints," are necessary to ensure appropriate actions.
There are also differences as to how absolute these moral rules are.
Thus, while Nozick's side-constraints are absolute restrictions on
behavior, Amartya Sen proposes a theory that recognizes the importance of certain rules, but these rules are not absolute. That is, they may be violated if strict adherence to the rule would lead to much more undesirable consequences.
One of the most common objections to rule-consequentialism is
that it is incoherent, because it is based on the consequentialist
principle that what we should be concerned with is maximizing the good,
but then it tells us not to act to maximize the good, but to follow
rules (even in cases where we know that breaking the rule could produce
better results).
In Ideal Code, Real World, Brad Hooker avoids this objection by not basing his form of rule-consequentialism on the ideal of maximizing the good. He writes:
[T]he best argument for rule-consequentialism is not that
it derives from an overarching commitment to maximise the good. The
best argument for rule-consequentialism is that it does a better job
than its rivals of matching and tying together our moral convictions, as
well as offering us help with our moral disagreements and
uncertainties.
Derek Parfit described Hooker's book as the "best statement and defence, so far, of one of the most important moral theories."
It is the business of the
benevolent man to seek to promote what is beneficial to the world and to
eliminate what is harmful, and to provide a model for the world. What
benefits he will carry out; what does not benefit men he will leave
alone (Chinese: 仁之事者, 必务求于天下之利, 除天下之害, 将以为法乎天下. 利人乎, 即为; 不利人乎, 即止).
— Mozi, Mozi (5th century BC) (Chapter 8: Against Music Part I)
State consequentialism, also known as Mohist consequentialism, is an ethical theory that evaluates the moral worth of an action based on how much it contributes to the welfare of a state. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Mohist consequentialism, dating back to the 5th century BCE, is the
"world's earliest form of consequentialism, a remarkably sophisticated
version based on a plurality of intrinsic goods taken as constitutive of human welfare."
Unlike utilitarianism, which views utility as the sole moral good, "the basic goods in Mohist consequentialist thinking are...order, material wealth, and increase in population." The word "order" refers to Mozi's stance against warfare and violence, which he viewed as pointless and a threat to social stability; "material wealth" of Mohist consequentialism refers to basic needs, like shelter and clothing; and "increase in population" relates to the time of Mozi, war and famine were common, and population growth was seen as a moral necessity for a harmonious society. In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, StanfordsinologistDavid Shepherd Nivison writes that the moral goods of Mohism "are interrelated: more basic wealth, then more reproduction; more people, then more production and wealth...if people have plenty, they would be good, filial, kind, and so on unproblematically."
The Mohists believed that morality is based on "promoting the benefit of all under heaven and eliminating harm to all under heaven." In contrast to Jeremy Bentham's views, state consequentialism is not utilitarian because it is not hedonistic or individualistic. The importance of outcomes that are good for the community outweigh the importance of individual pleasure and pain. The term state consequentialism has also been applied to the political philosophy of the Confucian philosopherXunzi. On the other hand, "legalist"Han Fei "is motivated almost totally from the ruler's point of view."
Ethical egoism can be understood as a consequentialist theory
according to which the consequences for the individual agent are taken
to matter more than any other result. Thus, egoism will prescribe actions that may be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral to the welfare of others. Some, like Henry Sidgwick, argue that a certain degree of egoism promotes
the general welfare of society for two reasons: because individuals
know how to please themselves best, and because if everyone were an
austere altruist then general welfare would inevitably decrease.
Ethical altruism can be seen as a consequentialist theory which
prescribes that an individual take actions that have the best
consequences for everyone, not necessarily including themselves (similar
to selflessness). This was advocated by Auguste Comte, who coined the term altruism, and whose ethics can be summed up in the phrase "Live for others."
Two-level consequentialism
The two-level approach
involves engaging in critical reasoning and considering all the
possible ramifications of one's actions before making an ethical
decision, but reverting to generally reliable moral rules when one is
not in a position to stand back and examine the dilemma as a whole. In
practice, this equates to adhering to rule consequentialism when one can
only reason on an intuitive level, and to act consequentialism when in a
position to stand back and reason on a more critical level.
This position can be described as a reconciliation between act consequentialism—in which the morality of an action is determined by that action's effects—and rule consequentialism—in which moral behavior is derived from following rules that lead to positive outcomes.
The two-level approach to consequentialism is most often associated with R. M. Hare and Peter Singer.
Motive consequentialism
Another consequentialist application view is motive consequentialism, which looks at whether the state of affairs
that results from the motive to choose an action is better or at least
as good as each alternative state of affairs that would have resulted
from alternative actions. This version gives relevance to the motive of
an act and links it to its consequences. An act can therefore not be
wrong if the decision to act was based on a right motive. A possible
inference is that one can not be blamed for mistaken judgments if the
motivation was to do good.
Most consequentialist theories focus on promoting some sort of
good consequences. However, negative utilitarianism lays out a
consequentialist theory that focuses solely on minimizing bad
consequences.
One major difference between these two approaches is the agent's responsibility. Positive consequentialism demands that we bring about good states of affairs, whereas negative
consequentialism requires that we avoid bad ones. Stronger versions of
negative consequentialism will require active intervention to prevent
bad and ameliorate existing harm. In weaker versions, simple forbearance
from acts tending to harm others is sufficient. An example of this is
the slippery-slope
argument, which encourages others to avoid a specified act on the
grounds that it may ultimately lead to undesirable consequences.
Often "negative" consequentialist theories assert that reducing suffering is more important than increasing pleasure. Karl Popper, for example, claimed that "from the moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure."
(While Popper is not a consequentialist per se, this is taken as a
classic statement of negative utilitarianism.) When considering a theory
of justice,
negative consequentialists may use a statewide or global-reaching
principle: the reduction of suffering (for the disadvantaged) is more
valuable than increased pleasure (for the affluent or luxurious).
Acts and omissions
Since
pure consequentialism holds that an action is to be judged solely by
its result, most consequentialist theories hold that a deliberate action
is no different from a deliberate decision not to act. This contrasts
with the "acts and omissions doctrine", which is upheld by some
medical ethicists and some religions: it asserts there is a significant
moral distinction between acts and deliberate non-actions which lead to
the same outcome. This contrast is brought out in issues such as voluntary euthanasia.
Actualism and possibilism
This section is about actualism and possibilism in ethics. For actualism and possibilism in metaphysics, see Actualism.
The normative status of an action depends on its consequences
according to consequentialism. The consequences of the actions of an
agent may include other actions by this agent. Actualism and possibilism
disagree on how later possible actions impact the normative status of
the current action by the same agent. Actualists assert that it is only
relevant what the agent would actually do later for assessing the
value of an alternative. Possibilists, on the other hand, hold that we
should also take into account what the agent could do, even if she would not do it.
For example, assume that Gifre has the choice between two
alternatives, eating a cookie or not eating anything. Having eaten the
first cookie, Gifre could stop eating cookies, which is the best
alternative. But after having tasted one cookie, Gifre would freely
decide to continue eating cookies until the whole bag is finished, which
would result in a terrible stomach ache and would be the worst
alternative. Not eating any cookies at all, on the other hand, would be
the second-best alternative. Now the question is: should Gifre eat the
first cookie or not? Actualists are only concerned with the actual
consequences. According to them, Gifre should not eat any cookies at all
since it is better than the alternative leading to a stomach ache.
Possibilists, however, contend that the best possible course of action
involves eating the first cookie and this is therefore what Gifre should
do.
One counterintuitive consequence of actualism is that agents can avoid moral obligations simply by having an imperfect moral character.
For example, a lazy person might justify rejecting a request to help a
friend by arguing that, due to her lazy character, she would not have
done the work anyway, even if she had accepted the request. By rejecting
the offer right away, she managed at least not to waste anyone's time.
Actualists might even consider her behavior praiseworthy since she did
what, according to actualism, she ought to have done. This seems to be a
very easy way to "get off the hook" that is avoided by possibilism. But
possibilism has to face the objection that in some cases it sanctions
and even recommends what actually leads to the worst outcome.
Douglas W. Portmore has suggested that these and other problems
of actualism and possibilism can be avoided by constraining what counts
as a genuine alternative for the agent.
On his view, it is a requirement that the agent has rational control
over the event in question. For example, eating only one cookie and
stopping afterward only is an option for Gifre if she has the rational
capacity to repress her temptation to continue eating. If the temptation
is irrepressible then this course of action is not considered to be an
option and is therefore not relevant when assessing what the best
alternative is. Portmore suggests that, given this adjustment, we should
prefer a view very closely associated with possibilism called maximalism.
Issues
Action guidance
One important characteristic of many normative
moral theories such as consequentialism is the ability to produce
practical moral judgements. At the very least, any moral theory needs to
define the standpoint from which the goodness of the consequences are
to be determined. What is primarily at stake here is the responsibility of the agent.
The ideal observer
One common tactic among consequentialists, particularly those committed to an altruistic (selfless) account of consequentialism, is to employ an ideal, neutral observer from which moral judgements can be made. John Rawls,
a critic of utilitarianism, argues that utilitarianism, in common with
other forms of consequentialism, relies on the perspective of such an ideal observer. The particular characteristics of this ideal observer can vary from an omniscient
observer, who would grasp all the consequences of any action, to an
ideally informed observer, who knows as much as could reasonably be
expected, but not necessarily all the circumstances or all the possible
consequences. Consequentialist theories that adopt this paradigm hold
that right action is the action that will bring about the best
consequences from this ideal observer's perspective.
The real observer
In practice, it is very difficult, and at times arguably impossible, to adopt the point of view of an ideal observer. Individual moral agents
do not know everything about their particular situations, and thus do
not know all the possible consequences of their potential actions. For
this reason, some theorists have argued that consequentialist theories
can only require agents to choose the best action in line with what they
know about the situation.
However, if this approach is naïvely adopted, then moral agents who,
for example, recklessly fail to reflect on their situation, and act in a
way that brings about terrible results, could be said to be acting in a
morally justifiable way. Acting in a situation without first informing
oneself of the circumstances of the situation can lead to even the most
well-intended actions yielding miserable consequences. As a result, it
could be argued that there is a moral imperative for agents to inform
themselves as much as possible about a situation before judging the
appropriate course of action. This imperative, of course, is derived
from consequential thinking: a better-informed agent is able to bring
about better consequences.
Consequences for whom
Moral
action always has consequences for certain people or things. Varieties
of consequentialism can be differentiated by the beneficiary of the good
consequences. That is, one might ask "Consequences for whom?"
Agent-focused or agent-neutral
A
fundamental distinction can be drawn between theories which require
that agents act for ends perhaps disconnected from their own interests
and drives, and theories which permit that agents act for ends in which
they have some personal interest or motivation. These are called "agent-neutral" and "agent-focused" theories respectively.
Agent-neutral consequentialism ignores the specific value a
state of affairs has for any particular agent. Thus, in an
agent-neutral theory, an actor's personal goals do not count any more
than anyone else's goals in evaluating what action the actor should
take. Agent-focused consequentialism, on the other hand, focuses
on the particular needs of the moral agent. Thus, in an agent-focused
account, such as one that Peter Railton outlines, the agent might be concerned with the general welfare, but the agent is more concerned with the immediate welfare of herself and her friends and family.
These two approaches could be reconciled by acknowledging the
tension between an agent's interests as an individual and as a member of
various groups, and seeking to somehow optimize among all of these
interests.
For example, it may be meaningful to speak of an action as being good
for someone as an individual, but bad for them as a citizen of their
town.
Human-centered?
Many
consequentialist theories may seem primarily concerned with human
beings and their relationships with other human beings. However, some
philosophers argue that we should not limit our ethical consideration to
the interests of human beings alone. Jeremy Bentham, who is regarded as the founder of utilitarianism,
argues that animals can experience pleasure and pain, thus demanding
that 'non-human animals' should be a serious object of moral concern.
More recently, Peter Singer
has argued that it is unreasonable that we do not give equal
consideration to the interests of animals as to those of human beings
when we choose the way we are to treat them.
Such equal consideration does not necessarily imply identical treatment
of humans and non-humans, any more than it necessarily implies
identical treatment of all humans.
Value of consequences
One
way to divide various consequentialisms is by the types of consequences
that are taken to matter most, that is, which consequences count as
good states of affairs. According to utilitarianism, a good action is one that results in an increase in pleasure, and the best action is one that results in the most pleasure for the greatest number. Closely related is eudaimonic
consequentialism, according to which a full, flourishing life, which
may or may not be the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure, is the
ultimate aim. Similarly, one might adopt an aesthetic consequentialism,
in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. However, one might fix
on non-psychological goods as the relevant effect. Thus, one might
pursue an increase in material equality or political liberty
instead of something like the more ephemeral "pleasure". Other theories
adopt a package of several goods, all to be promoted equally. As the
consequentialist approach contains an inherent assumption that the
outcomes of a moral decision can be quantified in terms of "goodness" or
"badness," or at least put in order of increasing preference, it is an especially suited moral theory for a probabilistic and decision theoretical approach.
Virtue ethics
Consequentialism can also be contrasted with aretaic moral theories such as virtue ethics.
Whereas consequentialist theories posit that consequences of action
should be the primary focus of our thinking about ethics, virtue ethics
insists that it is the character rather than the consequences of actions
that should be the focal point. Some virtue ethicists hold that
consequentialist theories totally disregard the development and
importance of moral character. For example, Philippa Foot argues that consequences in themselves have no ethical content, unless it has been provided by a virtue such as benevolence.
However, consequentialism and virtue ethics need not be entirely antagonistic. Iain King has developed an approach that reconciles the two schools.
Other consequentialists consider effects on the character of people
involved in an action when assessing consequence. Similarly, a
consequentialist theory may aim at the maximization of a particular
virtue or set of virtues. Finally, following Foot's lead, one might
adopt a sort of consequentialism that argues that virtuous activity
ultimately produces the best consequences.
Max Weber
Ultimate end
The ultimate end is a concept in the moral philosophy of Max Weber, in which individuals act in a faithful, rather than rational, manner.
We must be clear about the fact
that all ethically oriented conduct may be guided by one of two
fundamentally differing and irreconcilably opposed maxims: conduct can
be oriented to an ethic of ultimate ends or to an ethic of responsibility.
[...] There is an abysmal contrast between conduct that follows the
maxim of an ethic of ultimate ends — that is in religious terms, "the
Christian does rightly and leaves the results with the Lord" — and
conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of responsibility, in which
case one has to give an account of the foreseeable results of one's
action.
G. E. M. Anscombe
objects to the consequentialism of Sidgwick on the grounds that the
moral worth of an action is premised on the predictive capabilities of
the individual, relieving them of the responsibility for the "badness"
of an act should they "make out a case for not having foreseen" negative
consequences.
Immanuel Kant
makes a similar argument against consequentialism in the case of the
inquiring murder. The example asks whether or not it would be right to
give false statement to an inquiring murderer in order to misdirect the
individual away from the intended victim. He argues, in On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives,
that lying from "benevolent motives," here the motive to maximize the
good consequences by protecting the intended victim, should then make
the liar responsible for the consequences of the act. For example, it
could be that by misdirecting the inquiring murder away from where one
thought the intended victim was actually directed the murder to the
intended victim.
That such an act is immoral mirrors Anscombe's objection to Sidgwick
that his consequentialism would problematically absolve the
consequentalist of moral responsibility when the consequentalist fails
to foresee the true consequences of an act.
Bernard Williams
has argued that consequentialism is alienating because it requires
moral agents to put too much distance between themselves and their own
projects and commitments. Williams argues that consequentialism requires
moral agents to take a strictly impersonal view of all actions, since
it is only the consequences, and not who produces them, that are said to
matter. Williams argues that this demands too much of moral
agents—since (he claims) consequentialism demands that they be willing
to sacrifice any and all personal projects and commitments in any given
circumstance in order to pursue the most beneficent course of action
possible. He argues further that consequentialism fails to make sense of
intuitions that it can matter whether or not someone is personally the
author of a particular consequence. For example, that participating in a
crime can matter, even if the crime would have been committed anyway,
or would even have been worse, without the agent's participation.
Some consequentialists—most notably Peter Railton—have
attempted to develop a form of consequentialism that acknowledges and
avoids the objections raised by Williams. Railton argues that Williams's
criticisms can be avoided by adopting a form of consequentialism in
which moral decisions are to be determined by the sort of life that they
express. On his account, the agent should choose the sort of life that
will, on the whole, produce the best overall effects.
Self-reference is a concept that involves referring to oneself or one's own attributes, characteristics, or actions. It can occur in language, logic, mathematics, philosophy, and other fields.
In natural or formal languages, self-reference occurs when a sentence, idea or formula
refers to itself. The reference may be expressed either
directly—through some intermediate sentence or formula—or by means of
some encoding.
In philosophy, self-reference also refers to the ability of a
subject to speak of or refer to itself, that is, to have the kind of
thought expressed by the first person nominative singular pronoun "I" in English.
In classical philosophy, paradoxes were created by self-referential concepts such as the omnipotence paradox of asking if it was possible for a being to exist so powerful that it could create a stone that it could not lift. The Epimenides paradox,
'All Cretans are liars' when uttered by an ancient Greek Cretan was one
of the first recorded versions. Contemporary philosophy sometimes
employs the same technique to demonstrate that a supposed concept is
meaningless or ill-defined.
In mathematics and computability theory, self-reference (also known as impredicativity) is the key concept in proving limitations of many systems. Gödel's theorem uses it to show that no formal consistent
system of mathematics can ever contain all possible mathematical
truths, because it cannot prove some truths about its own structure. The halting problem
equivalent, in computation theory, shows that there is always some task
that a computer cannot perform, namely reasoning about itself. These
proofs relate to a long tradition of mathematical paradoxes such as Russell's paradox and Berry's paradox, and ultimately to classical philosophical paradoxes.
In game theory,
undefined behaviors can occur where two players must model each other's
mental states and behaviors, leading to infinite regress.
In computer programming, self-reference occurs in reflection, where a program can read or modify its own instructions like any other data.
Numerous programming languages support reflection to some extent with
varying degrees of expressiveness. Additionally, self-reference is seen
in recursion (related to the mathematical recurrence relation) in functional programming, where a code structure refers back to itself during computation.
'Taming' self-reference from potentially paradoxical concepts into
well-behaved recursions has been one of the great successes of computer science, and is now used routinely in, for example, writing compilers using the 'meta-language' ML. Using a compiler to compile itself is known as bootstrapping. Self-modifying code is possible to write (programs which operate on themselves), both with assembler and with functional languages such as Lisp, but is generally discouraged in real-world programming. Computing hardware makes fundamental use of self-reference in flip-flops,
the basic units of digital memory, which convert potentially
paradoxical logical self-relations into memory by expanding their terms
over time. Thinking in terms of self-reference is a pervasive part of
programmer culture, with many programs and acronyms named
self-referentially as a form of humor, such as GNU ('GNU's not Unix') and PINE ('Pine is not Elm'). The GNU Hurd is named for a pair of mutually self-referential acronyms.
The biology of self-replication is self-referential, as embodied by DNA and RNA replication mechanisms. Models of self-replication are found in Conway's Game of Life and have inspired engineering systems such as the self-replicating 3D printer RepRap.
In art
Drawloom,
with drawboy above to control the harnesses, woven as a repeating
pattern in an early-1800s piece of Japanese silk. The silk illustrates
the means by which it was produced.A self-referencing work of graffiti apologizing for its own existenceSelf-referential graffiti. The painter drawn on a wall erases his own graffiti, and may be erased himself by the next facade cleaner.
Self-reference in art is closely related to the concepts of breaking the fourth wall and meta-reference, which often involve self-reference. The short stories of Jorge Luis Borges play with self-reference and related paradoxes in many ways. Samuel Beckett's Krapp's Last Tape
consists entirely of the protagonist listening to and making recordings
of himself, mostly about other recordings. During the 1990s and 2000s
filmic self-reference was a popular part of the rubber reality movement, notably in Charlie Kaufman's films Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, the latter pushing the concept arguably to its breaking point as it attempts to portray its own creation, in a dramatized version of the Droste effect.
Various creation myths invoke self-reference to solve the problem of what created the creator. For example, the Egyptian creation myth has a god swallowing his own semen to create himself. The Ouroboros is a mythical dragon which eats itself.
The Quran includes numerous instances of self-referentiality.
The surrealist painter René Magritte is famous for his self-referential works. His painting The Treachery of Images, includes the words "this is not a pipe", the truth of which depends entirely on whether the word ceci (in English, "this") refers to the pipe depicted—or to the painting or the word or sentence itself. M.C. Escher's art also contains many self-referential concepts such as hands drawing themselves.
In language
A word that describes itself is called an autological word (or autonym). This generally applies to adjectives, for example sesquipedalian (i.e. "sesquipedalian" is a sesquipedalian word), but can also apply to other parts of speech, such as TLA, as a three-letter abbreviation for "three-letter abbreviation".
A sentence which inventories its own letters and punctuation marks is called an autogram.
There is a special case of meta-sentence in which the content of
the sentence in the metalanguage and the content of the sentence in the
object language are the same. Such a sentence is referring to itself.
However some meta-sentences of this type can lead to paradoxes. "This is
a sentence." can be considered to be a self-referential meta-sentence
which is obviously true. However "This sentence is false" is a
meta-sentence which leads to a self-referential paradox.
Such sentences can lead to problems, for example, in law, where
statements bringing laws into existence can contradict one another or
themselves. Kurt Gödel claimed to have found such a loophole in the United States Constitution at his citizenship ceremony.
Self-reference occasionally occurs in the media when it is required to write about itself, for example the BBC
reporting on job cuts at the BBC. Notable encyclopedias may be required
to feature articles about themselves, such as Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia.
Fumblerules
are a list of rules of good grammar and writing, demonstrated through
sentences that violate those very rules, such as "Avoid cliches like the
plague" and "Don't use no double negatives". The term was coined in a
published list of such rules by William Safire.
Circular definition
is a type of self-reference in which the definition of a term or
concept includes the term or concept itself, either explicitly or
implicitly. Circular definitions are considered fallacious because they only define a term in terms of itself. This type of self-reference may be useful in argumentation, but can result in a lack of clarity in communication.
The adverb "hereby" is used in a self-referential way, for example in the statement "I hereby declare you husband and wife."
In popular culture
Douglas Hofstadter's books, especially Metamagical Themas and Gödel, Escher, Bach,
play with many self-referential concepts and were highly influential in
bringing them into mainstream intellectual culture during the 1980s. Hofstadter's law, which specifies that "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law"
is an example of a self-referencing adage. Hofstadter also suggested
the concept of a 'Reviews of this book', a book containing only reviews
of itself, which has since been implemented using wikis and other technologies. Hofstadter's 'strange loop' metaphysics attempts to map consciousness onto self-reference, but is a minority position in philosophy of mind.
_-_stacked_bar_chart.svg)
.jpg)
