Hedonic consequentialism
whether this action is right or wrong, obligatory or forbidden, etc.) depends solely on the good and bad consequences of this action (benefits and harms).īy contrast, theories that are versions of deontology postulate that he moral status of a given action depends (not on consequences of this action) but rather on the fact that an agent fulfilled her duty (in Greek deon) (on on related issues such as that someone's moral rights are respected).Īlso by contrast, virtue ethics (e.g., a classical Natural Law theory) characterizes the moral status of actions in terms of what a virtuous person would do. The book has been reviewed in the following journals: Ethics, Journal of Moral Philosophy, Utilitas, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Dialouge, and Dialectica (the latter led to this response ) In November 2013 the book was discussed at a two-day conference in Konstanz, Germany.All versions of consequentialism postulate that the moral status of a given action (i.e. 99 on a scale from 0 to 1) while A and C are, roughly speaking, half right and half wrong (right to degree.
![hedonic consequentialism hedonic consequentialism](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/47_2mMbWE_Q/maxresdefault.jpg)
Perhaps B is almost entirely right (right to degree. All three alternatives are somewhat right and somewhat wrong. Therefore, none of the three alternatives is entirely right. The opposite is true of C, and while B is not optimal with respect to any of the two aspects, it scores pretty well with respect to both of them.
![hedonic consequentialism hedonic consequentialism](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QQnjwO3q41o/maxresdefault.jpg)
If so, they will conclude that while A is optimal with respect to total wellbeing it scores poorly with respect to equality. Multidimensional consequentialists may believe that wellbeing and equality are two irreducible moral aspects. Strict egalitarians, if they exist, believe that only C is right, while prioritarians would typically claim that B is the only right alternative. Hedonistic act utilitarians therefore believe that A is right and that B and C are wrong. In the example sketched in Figure 1, alternative A maximizes wellbeing. What matters for the classification of a theory as multidimensional is whether it is possible to characterize an act’s deontic status as a function of a single aspect.
![hedonic consequentialism hedonic consequentialism](http://www.rsrevision.com/images/calvin_happy3.jpg)
These factors can be reduced to a single aspect: the total amount of happiness brought about by the act. The fact that both the intensity and duration of a pleasurable experience matter (as well as the intensity and duration of painful ones) does not make the theory multidimensional. According to this theory, the only aspect that determines an act’s deontic status is whether it maximizes happiness. Total hedonistic act utilitarianism is an example of a one-dimensional view. An act is right to the highest degree if and only if it is optimal with respect to all applicable aspects, meaning that if two or more aspects clash even the best alternative is somewhat wrong.
![hedonic consequentialism hedonic consequentialism](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2-utilitarianismexplored-110920220721-phpapp01/95/2-utilitarianism-explored-5-728.jpg)
On the multidimensional view, moral rightness and wrongness literally come in degrees. If no act is optimal with respect to all aspects, then no act is entirely right. Multidimensional consequentialts believe that an act’s rightness or wrongness depends on several irreducible moral aspects. This book articulates and explores a distinction between one- and multidimensional accounts of consequentialism.