Does consequentialism pay?

Abstract

Consequentialism provides a normative standard for decision making, positing that the optimal choice is that which maximizes the achievement of specified goals. However, empirical evidence demonstrates that individuals frequently follow nonconsequentialist rules, leading to outcomes that are demonstrably inferior in terms of goal achievement. Such departures manifest in various cognitive biases, including the preference for harmful omissions over less harmful actions, the irrational favoring of the status quo, and the tendency to provide compensation based on the cause of a misfortune rather than its remediable impact. In the context of punishment, many decision-makers prioritize retributive principles over deterrent effects, and in matters of public policy, individuals often resist beneficial reforms due to rigid adherence to concepts of fairness or rights that conflict with overall utility. These nonconsequentialist principles likely arise from the overgeneralization of heuristics that are effective in narrow contexts but become maladaptive when applied universally. The persistence of these biases suggests a fundamental detachment between ingrained decision rules and the original purposes they served. Addressing these cognitive errors through revised philosophical and experimental methodologies, public policy adjustments, and targeted education remains critical for improving the quality of human decision making. – AI-generated abstract.