Counterexamples to consequentialism

Abstract

This philosophical work presents objections to consequentialism and the responses to these objections. The first type of objection presents harmful acts that result in greater long-term benefit and argues that consequentialism should endorse these acts. The response is that the agent performing the harmful act is likely not warranted in thinking that their particular performance of a typically disastrous act would avoid being disastrous and that if there is a reliable guarantee that no long-term harm will be done, then the act can be seen as morally acceptable. The second type of objection argues that an act that would normally have bad consequences could, in a specific instance, have overwhelmingly positive consequences such that it should be considered a morally good act by consequentialists. The response is that although the act may be morally acceptable in this specific instance, it is unlikely to be the best course of action available to a committed consequentialist and that the agent may still possess a flaw in their character if they would prefer to cause harm than to save lives by less harmful means. – AI-generated abstract.