 Hello, everyone. Today, we are going to talk about the introduction to ethical theories and in this, the first part, consequentialism and non-consequentialism. Now, what is an ethical theory? We would recollect from the class that we had held earlier. An ethical theory is a normative claim about the value domain. It is trying to take a theorize that what is the basis on which people take a moral decision. Now, coming to the first part of our claim, of our study over here is ethical theories and we are going to discuss about consequentialism and non-consequentialist theories. Now, if you pay attention on the screen, it is written that consequentialism includes any theory that judges the moral character of an action by the results, consequences of that action. Non-consequentialism, on the other hand, includes any theory that judges the moral character of any action independent of the result or the consequences of that action and this is also known as the set of deontological theories. Now, let me show you why I have written two words over here. Extrinsic and intrinsic. What does that mean? Why do we have an extrinsic and intrinsic written over here? Now, a consequentialist ethics domain is not a theory of ethics. It is a category of ethical theory in which there are various ethical theories that can be subsumed. Now, we are aware that every action that we do has a consequence, has a result. We have learnt it in our childhood that everything that we do, every act that we do has our consequences and the consequences determine what kind of act we choose to do. So, in a way, it is a trivial truth that, well, a certain kind of act brings in a certain kind of consequence and having the consequence in mind, we do the act. So, it is almost a metaphysical necessity that certain kinds of acts have always resulted in certain kinds of consequences and thereby we assume that, well, these acts result in these kinds of consequences. Now, coming to moral behavior or a moral theory. A moral theory essentially makes moral judgment. It is a theory about deciding between right and wrong. A theory about making a choice, giving adequate parameter to the moral domain. Now, what does consequentialism claim? It claims that, for any moral theory to be under the ambit of consequentialism, it has to judge an action by the results or consequence of that action. Now, does it strike you all that, how can this even be possible? That, how can there be other actions without consequences? I mean, every action we are aware of has consequences and thereby we decide that, choose which act to do. What is there? Are there acts without any consequences or do we decide on something without taking the consequences into action? Well, we will see about that, because a lot of moral philosophers have contested the claim that, all actions are consequentialist actions. Now, coming to consequentialism. It is a claim that is saying that, any action can be judged as right, wrong or any moral judgment on any action can be passed dependent on its consequences. Now, an act can be metaphysically separated with the consequences it brings about. So, it is a matter of almost a metaphysical necessity that, there is a correlation between acts and their consequences and similar kinds of acts, bringing similar under the same circumstances and laws following, bring the same kind of results. Now, this is something we take to be trivially true and the consequentialist maintains that, there is a distance between the anticipated consequence and the act and this consequence determines whether the act however, the act can be judged. Now, why do I say something as extrinsic? Extrinsic is well, when we do something for a goal for an objective in mind, we call it extrinsic. So, this is fairly easy to imagine. Extrinsic actions are goal directed behaviors, which are full and plenty that we do today. That well, if you want to do score well, you have to study hard. So, you are studying hard is towards the goal. So, extrinsic can be understood in a certain way as goal directed behavior. So, by contrast, what would intrinsic mean? Would intrinsic mean that behavior that does not have any goal? Well, not exactly. Intrinsic actions would be actions that are valuable or that have goals in themselves or that are themselves the goal or the purpose of that act. Let me put in an example. Say, you are enjoying watching a sunset every day evening on the top of your accommodation. Now, is that for a purpose? Yes, in the deeper sense you can say you feel happy about it. It brings about calmness, assuming that it does. But are these the consequences or are these intrinsically a part of the reason why you go up? That is, when you watch a sunset or when you watch a sunrise, perhaps mostly you are watching it because it is intrinsically valuable to you. That is, it is valuable for what it is, not for what it brings about. This is a crucial difference that we need to keep in mind. Non-consequentialist belongs to what it is and consequentialism talks about what it brings about. Now, we have seen that there is, if you could pay attention on the slide now, consequentialism is includes by itself. It is not a theory. It is a domain under which the theories that judge the moral character of an action by the results or its consequences of that action fall. So, the kind of moral theories that depend on use the consequence as the parameter are consequentialist theories. We have understood it as extrinsic or the purpose of the action is extrinsic to the action. We have also understood it as goal-directed behavior. It is about what acts that bring about something, what it brings about. Non-consequentialism, on the other hand, includes any theory that judges the moral character of an action independent of the consequences of that action. It is also known as deontological theories. So, what we have assumed as non-consequential, some things are that are valuable in itself. Now, if things are valuable in itself, that is, or actions which are valuable in itself are actions that are valuable in itself can fall into non-consequential theory. Now, let us imagine an act, because intuitively it is very easy for us to believe what is a consequentialist act. But, can we imagine what a non-consequentialist act would be? Is there something that we do not for achieving a consequence or not desiring a state of affair or a consequence? Well, one example that we talked about was that of a student relishing the joy of the view of a sunset or a sunrise or a view of nature or watching the skies or the fine arts given excellent example of things which are intrinsic, intrinsically valuable, that is, valuable in themselves. But, we will talk more about the domain, whether the deontological domain of whether there can be theories which can actually claim that there are things valuable in themselves and not to the consequence that they lead to. But, for now area or our focus would be on consequentialism. Please focus on the next slide now. Given that we have talked about that well, intuitively perhaps it is aware that consequentialism is the most obvious basis of human behavior, that all our actions are generally goal driven. We raise some important questions here. Let me read out the questions. Are there intrinsic reasons for actions or isn't it that all reasons are extrinsic or consequential? What are desirable consequences? What makes one set of consequences more desirable than the other? Consequentialism does not commit to the content of the consequences. Now, let us take these questions one by one. Are there intrinsic reasons for actions or isn't it that all reasons are extrinsic or consequential? We just talked about this theory that wherever we act, how do we decide? How do we choose a course of action? We choose a course of action by, let us get to the basics. What is the fundamentals of human thinking that decides moral choice or any choice for the matter of fact? We start with familiarity with certain kinds of actions which have led to a certain kinds of consequence. Now, that we desire that certain kind of consequence, we do the certain kind of action. First, it assumes a principle of correlation if not causality between actions and their consequences and that this is a sustainable stable relation and thereof when we make, when we choose an action, we have the consequence in mind. If I want to get slimmer, I would exercise. If I want to score well in the exams, I would study hard. So, these are some of these conditionals or if-then statements which exemplify consequentialist behavior. Now, the first question, it talks about that there are intrinsic reasons for actions, but isn't it that all reasons are extrinsic or consequential? Now, just as we had talked earlier that there is a tendency for us to understand all reasons as reasons for actions as extrinsic or consequential that whatever we do, we do it for a purpose. Can there be a purposeless action? That is the question, purposeless action. Now, are there purposeless actions? Now, because we are used to purposive actions, actions which have a purpose, which have a consequence in mind, this domain of purposeless action seems to be a difficult domain. We will talk about this when we talk about deontological ethics. For now, let us talk about consequentialism. Now, given that we assume that whatever we do, we do it, the acts that we perform are performed with a consequence in mind. Now, the first question that comes out, which is question number 2 in this sequence, what are the desirable consequences? What makes one set of consequences more desirable than the other? Given that well, we have consequences and consequences determine what acts we do, but how do we decide which consequence is more desirable than the other? How do we choose one consequence over the other? Now, this is where you need to remember that consequentialism is not a theory of ethics. It is a domain of ethics. It just claims that well, acts are to be determined by their the consequences they bring about. Now, what kind of consequences that is where theories come about? Whether this consequence should be happiness, as many of us would be familiar with, this should be anything else say x. Now, these consequences that we target determine what moral theory we are talking about in the consequential domain. Consequentialism per say number 3 does not commit to the content of the consequences. So, consequences can be anything from happiness, satisfaction that would determine what moral theory are we talking about. Can we think of any other consequence that could be the target of consequentialism that describes the domain of consequences or how do we make a hierarchy of consequences. This is the job of the moral theory and it is under the ambit of consequentialism. So, to determine the hierarchy of consequences we have a moral theory which is largely under the ambit of consequentialism. Now, two of the very famous and talked about consequentialist theories have been utilitarianism and eudomonism, Aristotle's eudomonism or perfectionism. Now, happiness comes as a desirable consequence. There could be a third consequence that is perfection. Perfection as a consequence. So, what do we mean that when happiness is a consequence or a moral theory that is describing a consequence. A moral theory needs to describe what is the hierarchy of consequences. Now, utilitarianism is one. Eudomonism is another. A case study or an example of moral theory. Now, coming to utilitarianism or it describes happiness as the desirable consequence and that when we have any action that promotes happiness becomes an indicator of whether the action is right or wrong. Perfection, any action that brings about perfection becomes an indicator of whether the action is right or wrong or any other value judgment that takes place accordingly. Let us go to the next slide now. We will be talking about utilitarianism in the coming lectures. For now, let us stick to consequentialism and see what kind of questions do we need to answer and be clear about what it is to be a consequentialist. What are the issues with consequentialism? There can be many moral theories with contradictory view on the content of desirable consequence, but still under the ambit of consequentialism. For example, utilitarianism is only a kind of consequentialism which describes the desirable consequence as utility or happiness. The other one that we talked about was perfectionism also known as eudomonism after Aristotle. Perfectionism is again another kind of consequentialism which describes that desirable consequence as those which promote perfection. So, we are looking at actions that promote perfection. So, it depends on what is your parameter or your compass. For the utilitarian, it is the happiness. For the eudomonistic individual, it is perfection. So, acts that promote perfection, but then there are few more questions that arise. Whose perfection and or whose happiness or whose consequences and when are the consequences? Are they long term or short term? This is an important question that the consequentialist has to ask and then this is also a question that is where the consequentialist may get bothered and troubled. Now, look at it this way. It is a very commonsensical way of taking decisions by visualizing consequences and thereof choosing the actions. But how do you visualize consequences? Consequences now or consequences later. How would you assign a temporal factor to these consequences by time or what about unintended consequences? Many times, we land up with consequences that we do not intend. Can they be judged? Well, these are some of the questions. Now, let us take it one by one. What is the difficulty? Now, the consequentialist has to define or has to explain that what is the term of the consequence that he takes. Say, a government body sitting to take a policy decision on interest rates. Now, it clearly these are actions which are teleological or purposive. Now, this body has to decide or will know whether its action is right or wrong, depending on the consequence that comes about. Now, look at it this. Look at this. There is an interesting possibility over here. Now, if the bank, let me use the board now to explain this predicament of the consequentialist. Assuming that you are a consequentialist, your goal to tweak interest rates to control inflation. Now, if this tends to be your goal that you want to tweak interest rates to control inflation, you act increase interest rates or decrease. I am not an economist to be very clear about that. So, say I increase interest rates, the consequences inflation controlled or let us say inflation not controlled. Now, this happens over a period of time. When the board, when the committee sits to decide on the interest rates and from the time they expect the policy to have an effect. So, can we judge whether the policy was right or wrong by the result it brings along or we have studied in these well intentioned economists have studied that well to control and interest rates or to control inflation we have to increase interest rates and they did what they had studied and well they find that inflation is not controlled. Now, does it make the theory wrong? Does it make the economists bad economists? Well, in this sense, it is not a moral term. It is a functional term that when we say that this is a bad policy is because the policy did not achieve its intended consequence. Now, substitute this with a moral dilemma. Suppose you want to help an alcoholic, that is you want to de-addict him or her. Now, what do you do or you are usually responsible? You are a banker and you pay his pension to the current alcoholic. So, you stop his funding. Now, say what happens with the consequence? Let us assume that well he continues to take alcohol, but now starts stealing. The alcohol continues starts stealing. Now, look at this. This is an interesting a closer moral dilemma that we come across. Now, our goal was to help an alcoholic. We stopped his funding and what we find that alcohol he continues to have alcohol. In fact, he has already started stealing. So, our intended effect was not achieved. In fact, quite on the converse he started doing something which was clearly wrong. So, now we have to judge the action. The action that we took stop funding. Now, is this the right action or wrong action? Now, imagine if he would have stopped consuming alcohol, it would have become a right action because we stopped funding and thereof he did not have any funds. So, he stopped, he could not buy liquor and he stopped taking alcohol. This is a consequentialist way of evaluating an action. So, well there is nothing intrinsically or in itself right or wrong about the action. To stop funding is there is was nothing intrinsically right or wrong about your action. Then what about your intention? You could stop funding with the intention to for him to suffer and thereof perhaps to start stealing or you could stop funding with the honest intention for him to improve. Now, this is where the consequentialist faces a little difficulty. Can consequences decide everything? Now, if you pay attention on the slide, the third question in this slide we come across is are the consequences always foreseeable? So, we have the next slide talks about how far are the consequences? It is short term or long term. So, basically are consequences foreseeable and how long or how far are the consequences? Now, let me illustrate this with an example. Say you have you are a moral agent, you are a person and you are taking a decision, say you are a parent. Now, as a parent you come out, you have a child and you are strict with the child. You are strict with the child for the consequence that will be or she will be well groomed. This is the long term consequence. However, this strictness in the short term or in his or let us assume it to be a male child that this strict upbringing leads the child to become rebellious in adolescence. Now, and this rebelliousness has landed him in trouble. Now, as a parent of the child, you have chosen strictness as the action and simplistically put that has your intention was that it be the child turned out to be well groomed and well, but it eventually turned out that in short term he became an rebellious adolescent, landed in trouble and let us assume that he commits suicide. So, there is then no long term. Now, this is a very painful example and we would rather hope that nobody goes through this, but this is a common dilemma that parents face, because when they choose a moral action, the way the moral ethos with which they would raise their children, they have the long term good in mind. But if that long term good pays off as or brings forth short term consequences which are unhappy or which is tragic in this case. Would you say that this result, would you say that this result here or here determines whether this action was right or wrong? Now, in that way, in that case, if they say the next sibling is again raised in a strict environment and turns out to be a very well groomed individual, how do you decide whether which action is right or wrong depending on the consequences. In that case, does it not take away a lot of somewhere it is counter intuitive to the moral sense that well we are judging an action by the consequence that it brings along. Let us also take another example. Let us say sometimes of an wicked intention we get a unintended good result. Will this act be termed as good or right or wrong? Now, this depends a wicked intention would clearly be a wicked act, wrong act for us. But with strange circumstances, we find it results to an unintended good consequence. We have all heard of that joke where an individual was rewarded for saving a child from the well and when in the award ceremony he was asked that well, how did you decide on doing such a brave thing. So, well he very frankly honestly said that well, before answering that question, I would like to know who in that crowd surrounding that well pushed me into the well. So, thereby showing that well, he did fall into the well or he was pushed into the well and saved the child as an accident not as a conscious choice, but the consequences were good. So, does he deserve the reward or not? Now, this is a problem that the consequentialist does face. When you describe the consequences, how sure are we of consequences? Let us go to the next slide. What about, yes, as we talked about, what about the actual consequence or expected consequence? What is the object of judgment? What if there is a difference between the two, as we clearly saw in the case talked about just now? What does it leads to a distinction between act consequentialism and rule consequentialism? We will talk about that in detail. And then there is trying to the difficulties that consequentialist faces. He is trying to explain justice and rights in consequential terms. The role of agent, the consequence for the individual or for the group, the consequences are related to the agent or it is independent of the agent. Anyway, there are various questions that we need to tackle, especially whether it is relation between equality or and consequentialism. We will talk about it now.