Ethics

Hi, I'm writing about the Act-Omission idea within consequentialism. Is it the case that consequentialists would argue that there is no moral significance between an act or an omission if they cause the same consequences??? Therefore, one who carries out an action and causes a set of consequences is no different to one who causes the same set of consequences by omitting to perform an action?

Comments

Yes, this is the view of those who bring their consequentialism to bear upon conduct directly -- though they may also hold that there is reason to blame and punish omissions less because here blame and punishment are less effective.

There are also indirect consequentialists. They bring their consequentialist assessment to bear on rules or on motives and then only indirectly on conduct. Thus they hold that we should follow the rules that are such that, if we follow them, the world will go best -- and we should follow these optimal rules even in those cases where a violation would make the world go even better. Motive consequentialists hold that we ought to have (and thus develop in ourselves and others) the motives that are such that, if we have them, the world will go best -- even though these motives will sometimes lead to conduct that is not optimal.

Then there are institutional consquentialist who, like Bentham, bring their consequentialism to bear on the institutional structure of society. They, too, are not committed to the view you question. They may hold that individuals act self-interestedly anyway (no use giving them moral prescriptions). Or they may hold that individuals ought to comply with the optimal institutional arrangements even when non-compliance would make the world go even better.

Read another response by Thomas Pogge

Read another response about Ethics