 Now, let us now talk about rule and act consequentialism. Before that, let us come to the situation, why we need to make a distinction between, as we mentioned on the slide between rule and act consequentialism. Now, very often we have a difference between the actual consequence, very often we have a difference between the actual consequence and the expected consequence. Now, considering this, we see that well, let me take an example. See, a government policy has been formed with the expectation that it, with certain expectations. Let us say, to uplift the minimal sustenance salaries paid or to provide minimum monuments to the countrymen at large, who are perhaps unemployed. Now, this is the expected consequence. But, what happens? Let us assume that it is, the actual consequence happens that it increases indolence, it kills entrepreneurship, it kills enterprise and it encourages sloth amongst people. Now, there is clearly a distinction between therefore, actual and expected consequences. Now, coming in such a case, where how do we judge between, the difference between actual, which consequence is to be taken as the primary consequence for judging the moral character of this actions. Is it the actual consequence or the expected consequence? There are many questions that consequentialism raises. One of them is perhaps that well, do we actually sit and meditate upon the consequence of each act that we do? Now, when we talk about act consequentialism, we talk about such a way of taking decisions, where each act is meditated upon as to what consequences it would bring along and thereby those consequences are the motivators for the action. Now, this as we see is generally not a usual way we go about. We go about something called rule consequentialism. Rule consequentialism is when each agent or decision making entity, be it a person, be it a body, be it a collective or be it an association or be it an entire government. Well, they have seen that certain kinds of acts have led to a certain kind of consequences in the long run and therefore, it is better to follow this pattern, which is framed under a rule and thereof rule consequentialism comes into existence. Now, let me take this, give you an example. Now, if we have seen that well in a particular instance, if lying is more profitable to me than speaking the truth, I would as an act consequentialist decide that well, let me lie for this instance and I get the consequence that I desire. Suppose, I have taken a loan and I have knowingly lied that I will be returning it, whereas I know that I have no means of returning it. Now, here the consequence is good for me. So, as an act consequentialist, I decide that well, I will lie now because this act brings me a desirable consequence. So, as a consequentialist and deciding that by consequentialism, I mean the happiness that brought about by it. So, strictly a hedonist or a utilitarian, I would take a loan falsely promising to repay it. Now, surely consequentialism is not this fallacious or so easy to falsify. The consequentialist answer that well, we need to frame something called rule consequentialism. We need to frame that well, if I take this loan just this time and I see that I get the happiness that I seek without repaying the loan, I get happy this time. But surely next time, nobody is going to loan anything to me. So, in the long run, when these cycles are repeated, I find that I am actually having consequences that I do not desire because no one is giving me loans anymore. So, the rule consequentialist would say that well, I need to stick to my promise because the desirable consequences that I require are not just for this act, but for the series of acts that I would ever take place. The same thing is with government policies that we frame rules because these rules would bring us consequences that we desire and act consequentialist perhaps is seeing the act in isolation of the continuity of acts that take place. So, rule consequentialist in a way brings about rationalization and brings about a claim that well, there are certain rules that are to be followed to bring about consequences that we desire. Now, there are again certain other questions that consequentialism faces that how does the consequentialist explain justice or rights notions like these in their paradigm that well, what is it to be just? Just is to have just consequences, but what is again just consequences? We will talk about it in the next slide when we talk about that does consequentialist actually assume naturalism or does it deny moral atomism? We will talk about that in the next slide. So, apart from that the consequentialist also faces this dilemma when he wants to talk about consequences for whom? Is it for the agent or is it for consequences which are independent of the agent? Now, the role of the agent in consequentialism is it agent relative or agent neutral? Now, if it is agent relative then it is my consequences or consequences for us. So, this would actually be consequences for me. Now, which of these two do we mean whether it is consequences for me or consequences for us or for a more inclusive consequentialist consequences for everyone? This is just to state that well, consequentialism is not denying good motives as we talk about. When we talk about say why do you want to save the planet? Well, if there can be a consequentialist answer to that the consequentialist would say that well, I want to save this planet because it would bring happiness to all who are existing now and all who are to exist in the future. So, here the domain is the largest. So, a kind of universal concern can also be understood in the consequentialist framework. Consequences for me, suppose I want something for myself, now that is the agent for the reason for doing something. Now, we want the future generations to relish the fruits of science and technology. So, we try not to over use nature to cause its end and thereby preventing the future generations from enjoying the planet. So, this is an example of having consequences for everyone of being concerned for everyone. So, it depends that how we understand consequentialism. Will it be for me or will it be for us or will it be for everyone? So, consequentialism has a various strains. Now, coming back to relation between equality and consequentialism. Thus, is equality a consequence that what as we talked about earlier that what is the content of the consequence. Now, one of the content of the consequences we talked about was perfectionism that we keep trying till we attain perfectionism. Other one was happiness and now there can be a third one which is equality. That we act so that there is an equality achieved between the ends. Now, let us go further to find out what is meant by consequentialism. Now, we will talk about that are there any fundamental issues that we are left with. Now, there are two fundamental issues that I would like you to dwell upon that is there any ultimate or sustainable distinction between consequentialists and deontologists. Now, consequentialists and non-consequentialists are supposed to be two separate domains. How are we going to agree with the how is this confusion arise that well there is a difference between when we question that there is there really a difference between consequentialist and a non-consequentialist. This we will take up this issue further when we talk about deontologists or non-consequentialists. But for the moment let me give a brief remark on this issue that are we seeing that well we took the example of the person keeping his promises while taking a loan. Now, the reason for that that keeping promises entails higher credit rating for future or better credit rating for future requirements. Now, even a deontologist would claim that one should not break one's commitment. Now, the rule consequentialist could say that well this is exactly the same rule that the rule consequentialist subscribes to. Only the justification being that these kind of rules become essential for a good life. So, that one should not steal the usual dictums that we come across that one should not steal one should not lie are usual dictums for having a better life for all. Now, the deontologist also says that well these are some things which are intrinsically right and should not be violated. Now, a point can be made that perhaps rule consequentialists or more appropriately rule consequentialists are saying the same thing as deontologists or non-consequentialists. Now, their claims could be that well the deontological claims are nothing but the socialization and internalization of rule consequentialism. Let me write that down. Deontological claims are nothing but the socialized internalized practices in a society which originate from rule consequentialism. So, rule consequentialism says that it is more profitable not to break one's commitments and this becomes internalized as a deontological claim that one it is simply deniably wrong to break one's commitments. Now, we come to another question that can consequentialists regard any moral property as fundamental. Now, if the consequentialists regard any moral property as fundamental why does this question arise? Well, this question arise because now whatever be the act it leads to a consequence and we judge the act by the consequence. Now, the act the judgment on the act moral quality this is a moral judgment but this consequence seems to be a natural fact. Now, let me simplify. Now, if this act is that it is wrong to break one's commitments or this act is breaking one's commitment the consequence is a denial or a fall in trust levels and a reduction in happiness. Now, reduction in happiness is a natural fact that well there is a reduction in happiness and therefore that is wrong the act itself is wrong or whatever moral judgment that we make on it. So, this is an example where consequentialist is a naturalist we will talk about it in further details but we should be mildly aware of it that naturalism is reducing moral properties to natural properties. Now, when moral properties are reduced to natural properties they are called that is called naturalism. Now, very often consequentialists are naturalists but that does not mean that consequentialism requires one to be naturalist. If the consequence itself is a conformity to a law book or a conformity to a moral claim or any other non-natural conformity it comes out to be a consequentialist act. Now, when somebody follows a rule book with the aim being that well I should confirm to the followings of a rule book and I am doing this act because the consequence of which is that it confirms to the law book. So, that is an example of a consequentialist who is not a naturalist. We will talk about this in detail when we talk about metaethics. So, for now we have seen the basic issues that concern consequentialism and now we go ahead in talking about the first domain of consequentialism or first description of what consequences are that is hedonism.