Is Morality Conequential Or Nonconsequential
The debate over whether morality is consequential or nonconsequential is difficult to settle, because there is evidence that supports both conclusions. Consequentialism is a view that is similar to utilitarianism – that whatever is best for “the greater good” is the most moral choice. Nonconsequentialism is the view that morality should be judged on the basis of the properties of an action instead of the action’s outcomes1. I will argue that moral judgments are ultimately consequential. Kurzban’s paper on reproductive strategies influencing someone’s views on drugs support the consequentialist view of morality2. He argued that “efforts to limit recreational drug usage flow in large part from attempts by committed reproductive strategists
to reduce levels of sexual promiscuity because promiscuity interferes with committed strategies”2. This suggests that the moral condemnation for drug usage stems from the potential consequences those drug users may have on the condemners.
DeScioli and Kurzban’s paper offered supporting evidence for the nonconsequentialist view on morality. The trolley example and the fact that most people view incest as wrong even when there are no negative consequences corroborate the view that people make nonconsequentialist decisions.
However, I don’t believe these examples actually support nonconsequentialism. When people are asked why they think incest is wrong, they provide many reasons to justify their answer. When the experimenter tells them that this specific case of incest doesn’t actually cause harm to anyone, the participants will believe it’s wrong because they still intuitively believe it will cause negative consequences3.
In the Trolley example, I believe that there are differences between the two situations – flipping a switch and pushing someone in front of the train – because the consequences are viewed differently. In the former situation, most people may view the consequences as “saving five people” while the latter situation may be seen as “killing one person” 3.
Ultimately, evolution is a consequentialist process and we should expect it to produce consequentialist mechanisms.
to reduce levels of sexual promiscuity because promiscuity interferes with committed strategies”2. This suggests that the moral condemnation for drug usage stems from the potential consequences those drug users may have on the condemners.
DeScioli and Kurzban’s paper offered supporting evidence for the nonconsequentialist view on morality. The trolley example and the fact that most people view incest as wrong even when there are no negative consequences corroborate the view that people make nonconsequentialist decisions.
However, I don’t believe these examples actually support nonconsequentialism. When people are asked why they think incest is wrong, they provide many reasons to justify their answer. When the experimenter tells them that this specific case of incest doesn’t actually cause harm to anyone, the participants will believe it’s wrong because they still intuitively believe it will cause negative consequences3.
In the Trolley example, I believe that there are differences between the two situations – flipping a switch and pushing someone in front of the train – because the consequences are viewed differently. In the former situation, most people may view the consequences as “saving five people” while the latter situation may be seen as “killing one person” 3.
Ultimately, evolution is a consequentialist process and we should expect it to produce consequentialist mechanisms.