The Contradictions of Consequentialism

Summary

Highlights

• Consequentialism focuses on the results of actions over intentions. 💡
• Even insane actions might seem justified if focusing only on outcomes. 🤯
• Human limitations in foreseeing outcomes make consequentialism problematic. 🔮
• Consequentialism can justify heinous acts if the end is believed good. 😱
• Classic examples like the trolley problem illustrate consequentialist dilemmas. 🚋
• Personal stake in outcomes sheds light on consequentialism's flaws. 🤐
• Pascal's wager presents issues akin to consequentialist arguments. 🤔
• Hypothetical scenarios often ignore the inherent rights and wrongs. 🚫
• Consequentialism lacks a complete moral foundation. ⚠️

Key Takeaways

• Consequentialism judges morality based on outcomes. ⚖️
• The philosophy can justify any action if the end result is deemed good. 🤔
• Human unpredictability challenges consequentialism's validity. 🔮
• Consequentialism might undermine personal rights. 🚫
• Protection of individual rights should supersede outcomes. 🛡️
• Historical missteps, like Mao's policies, highlight its dangers. 📚

Overview

Chapters

• 00:00 - 01:00: Introduction to Consequentialism Consequentialism is a philosophical concept that determines the morality of an action by its outcomes. Good actions lead to good outcomes, while bad actions lead to bad outcomes. This idea is foundational in various ethical discussions and can be understood as evaluating good versus evil based on the consequences of actions.
• 01:00 - 02:00: Criticism of Consequentialism The chapter titled 'Criticism of Consequentialism' discusses the moral framework of consequentialism, which evaluates the morality of actions based on their outcomes. It highlights the notion that in consequentialism, the consequences of actions are deemed more significant than intentions or adherence to rights, suggesting a belief that 'the ends justify the means.' The chapter acknowledges that while many philosophers debate this idea, arguing its utmost importance, consequentialism has its merits and place, showing that it's a significant aspect of moral philosophy. It suggests a balanced view where the insights of consequentialism are recognized alongside its criticisms.
• 02:00 - 03:00: Merchandise Promotion In the chapter titled 'Merchandise Promotion,' the speaker discusses the concept of consequentialism, though they critique the M consequences argument as not the most effective model. The main focus shifts to a promotional segment where the speaker introduces new merchandise available in their store. They are launching a sale on this merchandise, which is inspired by the video's theme. The merchandise includes cursed fumo items available in golden black or colorful, customizable versions, priced attractively with the aim to support the speaker.
• 03:00 - 04:00: Consequentialism vs Natural Rights The chapter discusses the philosophy of consequentialism and its inherent issues. It argues that the objective reality of an action can differ from the individual's perception or belief of that action. An example is given involving an insane person who believes they are doing good by harming others, illustrating the potential dangers and moral dilemmas of relying solely on consequentialist reasoning.
• 04:00 - 08:00: Problems with Consequentialism In this chapter, the author discusses the idea that actions should be judged based on their outcomes, a key tenet of consequentialism. The text presents a scenario involving a deranged individual whose actions are ostensibly virtuous but inherently harmful, such as threatening others with a flamethrower. The author argues that, from the perspective of the victim, the individual's belief in the righteousness of their actions is irrelevant, as the immediate threat overshadows any such claims of virtuous intent. This leads to questioning whether consequentialism is entirely adequate as a moral framework.
• 08:00 - 11:00: Trolley Problem and Consequentialism This chapter discusses the ethical dilemma known as the Trolley Problem and examines the theory of consequentialism. It questions whether principles and virtues are less important than the outcomes or consequences of actions. The speaker argues against the superiority of consequentialism as a moral system, suggesting that a respect for natural rights should take precedence. While some arguments against consequentialism are well-known, the speaker introduces less common critiques and identifies a significant overlooked problem in consequentialist ethics, suggesting that it is overrated.
• 11:00 - 15:00: Pascal's Wager and False Dichotomies The chapter 'Pascal's Wager and False Dichotomies' begins by addressing the problems associated with consequentialist ethics, particularly questioning whether the ends justify the means. It delves into both widely recognized problems and those less observed, underscoring a particular flaw the author finds most glaring, despite its obscurity. The discussion notes that a frequent criticism from philosophers is the unreliable nature of human judgment, a fundamental issue in consequentialism.
• 15:00 - 18:00: Consequentialism and Natural Rights Chapter Title: Consequentialism and Natural Rights
• 18:00 - 21:00: Conclusion and Call to Action The chapter discusses the limitations and pitfalls of consequentialism as a moral philosophy. It argues that without omniscience, human beings cannot determine if their actions genuinely lead to good or evil outcomes. This uncertainty renders consequentialism subjective and vulnerable to the Nirvana fallacy. The chapter highlights the conundrum inherent in consequentialism, urging a reconsideration of how people perceive the morality of their decisions in the absence of perfect knowledge.

The Contradictions of Consequentialism Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 [Music] hey internets so if you're plugged into the world of philosophy in any level at all you may have heard of the word consequentialism for those who don't know consequentialism is the meta ethical idea that you could tell good from Evil based on the outcome that you
• 00:30 - 01:00 judge morality of actions based on the consequences of those actions or in some instances it's the idea that the ends justify the means and so your intentions and whether or not what you're doing violates other people's rights is thus in the consequentialist framework considered less important than the actual real observed outcome of your actions and there's a lot of people in philosophy who will argue that this is the biggest thing that matters and to some degree consequentialism does have its place they have some relatively good points which shows that honestly every
• 01:00 - 01:30 rational being has to occasionally be consequentialist to some degree however overall I found that the M consequences argument is generally not the best at the Glam model out there and this video is going to explain why that is first off this video does not have a sponsor but I do have some new merch on the merch store and I'm putting it on an introductory sale I figured since this is a m video I'd create some cursed fumo merch you can get it in either purely golden Black Version or as a fully colored and customizable version they are fairly priced at14 and $15.99 and the profits really help me out in terms of supporting me and directly goes to
• 01:30 - 02:00 helping me set aside more of my time to make more dank videos but anyways back to understanding consequentialism and its issues again consequentialism has some good points that become apparent when you realize that the objective reality of what a person is doing isn't necessarily the same thing as what they believe that they are doing for example if an insane person for whatever bizarre reason thinks that going around with a flamethrower and setting people on fire is a good thing because they are cleansing their victim of their sins or some similar magical justification that is very likely to be true I think most
• 02:00 - 02:30 people can agree even relatively religious people can agree that this deranged person's actions should really be rightfully judged on the outcome just because they believe what they're doing is virtuous it doesn't really matter does it and it's pretty easy to understand this by simply putting yourself in the shoes of one of the people who is about to get burned if said delusional person showed up at your doorstep would you really care that they think they're doing the right thing as they're pointing the flamethrower at you or would you fight back I mean it's kind of an obvious question really however does this mean that consequentialism
• 02:30 - 03:00 really is better than everything do principles and virtues always matter less than consequentialism because as it turns out there are quite a few good arguments out there for why consequentialism is not the best moral system to follow and why I've come to find that respect for People's Natural Rights should be placed above consequentialism some of these arguments are common but a couple of them are arguments I don't really see that often there's a very big additional problem with consequentialist ethics that most people completely Miss and I find that consequentialism is highly overrated as
• 03:00 - 03:30 a result of this and so let's go over what the problems with consequentialist ethics are why do the ends not really justify the means starting with the more commonly identified problems to the more obscure ones the ones again that everyone just kind of misses and they let slide despite one of the less common arguments actually being what I consider to be consequentialism most glaring flaw but let's start with the first one the most common issue with consequentialism that philosophers will often bring up is that just about everyone will point out is that human beings unfortunately are
• 03:30 - 04:00 not omniscient we don't actually know everything and so we can't always see into the future to foresee what that good outcome will be no matter how certain we are in our reasoning and how well the chances of some bad thing happening fits some probability model the reality is there are enough subjective factors in the universe that we can't actually be sure of everything for example going back to Crazy flamethrower fumo what if we actually do live in Crazy Land what if the insane delusions that people must be purified by fire are in fact hypo atically
• 04:00 - 04:30 correct and that if we aren't purified in this way an even worse outcome is out there for Humanity and so you can kind of see the basic conundrum here with consequentialism you don't really know and so consequentialism puts you in this really bizarre situation where no one can really truly know whether or not what they're doing is actually good or evil and therefore consequentialism is subjective to the whims of the reality that human beings don't know everything we're not omniscient we're not perfect and thus consequentialist arguments often fall victim to being a form of Nirvana fallacy if it only makes sense
• 04:30 - 05:00 if you imagine that the perfect world the consequentialist claims will happen will in fact happen you have to assume that your prediction is perfectly accurate but that Perfection is often not the case and so this really calls into the question is what flamethrower fumo is doing really right or is it wrong is it good or evil and the reality is that consequentialism can really justify it either way which then brings us to the second problem with consequentialism is that there's really no heus act that can't be justified with consequentialist thinking if the ends truly justify the means then where does the extent of the means end this is a
• 05:00 - 05:30 problem with consequentialism that is often brought up in historical contexts many acts of things like torture and mass murder things that people would generally agree or bad were done by men who believed what they were doing was for the greater good for example ma Zedong tortured and murdered many people in his rise to power and continued to do so after he had gained power but in his mind he was right because he was radicalized by Marxism in his Youth and he believed that Marxism was the answer to all of China's problems and yet even when he successfully gained power and started to try and Implement those
• 05:30 - 06:00 policies things didn't really work out as he planned for instance in the Great Leap Forward he tried to use socialist ideas of Economics to try and collectivize the farms and of course it didn't work it just led to millions of Chinese people starving to death and then he made the mistake again in the cultural revolution thinking he needed to forcibly Stamp Out Chinese traditional culture in order to force some kind of marxist ideological Purity and this Purity spiraling all it really did was just result in the deaths of another million or so people and of course none of this actually helped China at all when we look back at it from a historical point of view
• 06:00 - 06:30 hindsight is 2020 and we can actually see that China if they had gone a completely different route if someone with a more classical liberal mindset gained power back then instead of maoa dong then China would actually be significantly better off today possibly even better off than the United States and they wouldn't have had to sacrifice tens of millions of people to do it and so what we find from looking at Mao in his life is just basic proof of another problem with consequentialism which is that consequentialism has consequences so when you take this teleological practice this concept that good and evil is judged entirely by its outcome you've
• 06:30 - 07:00 created an ethical system where anyone can justify anything so long as they claim that it's going to have a good outcome but the reality is even if you achieve your goal you don't really know if that goal may actually end up having worse outcomes later down the line those consequences may have more consequences of their own Ma just assumed that everything would be sunshine and rainbows as long as he were to gain power the problem is his ideas were in fact very stupid and didn't work and so there were consequences of him gaining power and you can simplify this in philosophical terms by kind of looking at the classic trolley problem the
• 07:00 - 07:30 trolley problem is another way of looking at consequentialist ethics it's pretty basic if there's a trolley coming down a track and it's about to run over five people would you pull the lever and switch to trolley to a track where it's only running over one person and the issue with this question that everyone just kind of leaves out or just for fun let's call it the Maad dong problem is that you don't actually know what's further down the track you can't see what lies Beyond this gaping Abyss it's just assumed that that's the end of the question it's just you the trolley the lever and and these six people and
• 07:30 - 08:00 everything else is just an isolated variable but that's not how reality actually works is it in the real world time goes on so how do you know that there aren't people further down the line in the trolley what if diverting the train will actually lead to an even greater disaster and so when we're confronted with the reality that human beings do not possess this perfect omniscient magical knowledge of everything that's going to happen it suddenly becomes quite clear that people don't really know what it is they're doing which speaking about the trolley problem this leads to the third major issue with consequentialism which is that consequentialism kind of hits
• 08:00 - 08:30 differently when it's your ARS on the line for example is it good to torture one person for the rest of their life if it results in 10 other impoverished people each being given $10 million so that they can live their life to the fullest never wanting for anything anymore basically it's one person's misery worth 10 other people's happiness a fairly common consequentialist question but what if it's you that's tied to that trolley or in the misery question would you volunteer yourself to live the rest of your life being tortured in some chamber being whipped and beaten every day if it meant helping
• 08:30 - 09:00 10 other people out or even worse what if it wasn't voluntary what if someone was forcing you into the torture chamber regardless of whether or not you consented to it and so now it's someone else deciding for you and forcing you to accept that your misery is worth the happiness of 10 other people and so it's not so easy to try and claim that consequentialism is the ultimate end all be all to what is right and what is wrong when you try and put yourself into the equation it's easy from an outside third person's perspective to say okay yeah sacrificing one person for whatever outcome is a good thing but what if
• 09:00 - 09:30 you're the one that's being sacrificed it's suddenly not so fun is it and putting yourself into the equation brings me to one of the scenarios that most people miss one of the less common issues with consequentialism for instance you may have heard of something called Pascal's wager which is a pragmatic argument for believing in God based on the assumption that not believing in God will result in you going to hell but believing in him will result in you going to heaven and so since you gain nothing through non-belief and have everything to gain through belief therefore you should believe under the chance that it might send you to heaven now there are good
• 09:30 - 10:00 arguments and bad arguments in favor of theology or if there's some greater force beyond the universe but when you think about it you'll realize that Pascal's wager isn't a very good one and the problem with it and what a lot of people don't realize about it and this is where one of the less common things people notice about consequentialism lies is that Pascal's wager is actually a false dichotomy do X bad thing or else y bad outcome will happen is a false dichotomy asserting that there is no third possibility which is that doing X bad thing will create an even worse scenario Z an even worse outcome what if God is actually testing us and the only
• 10:00 - 10:30 people he sends to hell are in fact the people who only believe in him because they think that not doing so will result in them going to hell that may sound silly but it's actually a very real critique of Pascal's wager because Pascal's wager is really just a consequentialist argument and so it do has the same issue as the trolley problem you don't really know what's going to happen and you don't actually know if there's something else entirely that is completely beyond your comprehension that may actually be even worse and what's funny is I often see the people who point this out are often consequentialist themselves without
• 10:30 - 11:00 realizing that this problem of Pascal's wager actually applies to just about every single hypothetical consequentialist scenario so for instance in a debate someone who believes that a person's rights are more important than consequentialism the consequentialist might ask them something like oh yeah but what if aliens are going to destroy the Earth and they tell you that they will blow the Earth up unless you steal a candy bar from this store and so in other words the consequentialist is effectively stating oh what you think that stealing is wrong well what if you had to steal in order to save the Earth
• 11:00 - 11:30 do hoo natural rights destroyed but there's a problem with this reasoning if you think about it you'll realize that this is really just a secular version of Pascal's wager what if the aliens are actually testing us what if they plan to view Humanity as a threat and destroy the Earth if you do steal the candy bar and this of course just all distracts from the reality that hey maybe just maybe both shoplifting and blowing up the Earth are wrong things to do which then brings us to another thing people don't notice it just kind of let slide with these hypothetical scenarios in
• 11:30 - 12:00 favor of consequentialism not only do they presume perfect knowledge that nobody actually has and are thus guilty of a false dichotomy in regards to scenarios Z but another common factor with consequentialist arguments is that the bad stuff they mention is just almost always about property rights these hypotheticals always either put people's belongings on the line or put their lives on the line and maybe just maybe that's because we inherently know that that's what really matters and so there's actually some inherent circularity in the reasoning of the teleological point of view how does the consequentialist even know what a quote
• 12:00 - 12:30 unquote bad outcome is anyways without first considering the morality of the action itself and so consequentialism must therefore have a foundation of human rights to make that decision and this is what I see as consequentialism most glaring flaw it's not a real complete moral philosophy on its own rather instead it's just a thinly veiled alternative version of collectivism where it places Collective outcomes above individual rights but it can't do that unless it first acknowledges the good of those individual rights and if that's the case then when the consequentialist viol Ates those rights
• 12:30 - 13:00 then logically what they're doing must be wrong and so if stealing and everyone dying is both bad then this brings us to another fourth possibility shouldn't we instead be focused on avoiding both y bad thing and X bad thing maybe just maybe it's better to you know not violate anybody's rights and perhaps we should stop listening to wouldbe communist dictator number 552 when he fearmongers about how we have to give up all of our property rights or else the meteor of Doom is going to come any day now and so when you look at things instead from the standpoint of acknowledging that are a thing you can
• 13:00 - 13:30 instead just say that it's wrong to steal a candy bar and it's also wrong to blow up the Earth it's definitely a lot more reasonable than trying to use false dichotomies to convince ourselves that human rights don't exist and so the real problem with consequentialism is that people are putting the cart before the horse this doesn't mean that consequentialism is bad it's just that it's easy for us to lose sight of what really matters and thus in the hierarchy of morality the more rational view is that consequentialist arguments are only valid so long as the consequentialist is not posing an idea that would violate somebody else's rights because the
• 13:30 - 14:00 reality is those are the rights that really matter that's what we really care about and thus consequentialism should be used to defend those rights when you use consequentialist thinking to justify taking those rights away that's when you have a fallacy on your hands that's where you find yourself wearing the same stupid boots that Mao zong was wearing that's when you've lost the plot anyways that's all I have to say thanks for watching please like comment share and subscribe and if you like my content and want to support me you can do so on Kofi subscribe Star by becoming a member of the channel or by buying some merch of
• 14:00 - 14:30 which again I've just released some new fumo based merch at a temporary introductory sale price and a link to that will be included in the description below but yeah again that is all till next time