The Demands of Consequentialism

Abstract

Standard consequentialist ethics face the “demandingness objection” because they prioritize impersonal value over an agent’s personal projects and commitments. While simple maximizing act consequentialism fails to protect individual integrity, alternative collective and individualist solutions—such as rule consequentialism or satisficing—frequently suffer from internal inconsistencies or allow for counter-intuitive moral requirements. A more robust framework distinguishes between the “realm of necessity,” concerning basic physiological needs, and the “realm of reciprocity,” concerning the pursuit of diverse life goals among interacting agents. Within this bifurcated system, a combined consequentialist theory assigns different normative principles to distinct contexts. Individualist maximizing principles appropriately govern the realm of necessity, while a collectivist, rule-based approach regulates social interaction and communal goals. These realms are balanced through a non-proportional agent-centered prerogative that limits the sacrifices required of individuals based on the significance of their goals. This synthesis preserves the central consequentialist commitment to promoting value while protecting the autonomy required for a meaningful life. By integrating the strengths of both individual and collective frameworks, this approach reconciles the stringent demands of global suffering with the moral significance of personal relationships and communal participation. – AI-generated abstract.