What Should We Do?

“What should we do?” All philosophical and religious traditions affirm that there are right actions and ways of being good persons that have intrinsic worth. The prohibition against murder and being the kind of person who offers hospitality are cross-cultural examples. Each of these ethical imperatives may be justified by reasoning that is not utilitarian, and may also be defended with religious arguments.

Alternatively, consequential reasoning does not presume there are any intrinsically right actions or ways of being, but instead asserts that we should do whatever we think will probably have the best consequences. When stated as utilitarian ethics, the answer as to what we should do is whatever will likely result in “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

Problems with consequential reasoning include the limitations on our ability to predict the future, the difficulties of measuring and comparing happiness, suffering, loss of ecosystems, financial gain, etc., and the potential use of this reasoning to disregard the rights and welfare of those in the minority. We see consequential reasoning at its worst in trickle-down economic arguments for cutting taxes for the rich and in removing governmental regulations on corporate energy production as a way of realizing greater efficiency and lower consumer costs.

Yet, consequential reasoning also has practical benefits, as we all know. There are significant risks of acting only on our good intentions. Utilitarian reasoning supports democracy by valuing the happiness or suffering of everyone (at least in principle) who might be affected by an action. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill relied on utilitarian reasoning to justify social movements for prison and educational reforms. More recently, Peter Singer has made utilitarian reasoning popular by emphasizing the suffering of animals in his assessment of the consequences of the consumer lifestyle we enjoy and recommend for the world. 

My approach in “doing ethics” is pluralist and pragmatic. It is pluralist, because I assess deontological and teleological arguments about what is intrinsically right and good, as well as consequential reasoning. It is pragmatic, because I recommend constructing an ethical presumption from the deontological and teleological arguments, and then testing this presumption by consequential reasoning. 

Doing Ethics in a Diverse World applies this approach to issues such as health care, capital punishment, terrorism, economic justice, AIDS, and sexual conduct. Doing Environmental Ethics asks what we should do about air and water pollution, the preservation of wild places and endangered species, factory farming, economic development, and climate change. 

With hope . . . Bob