Consequentialist vs. non-consequentialist theories of ethics

There are two broad categories of ethical theories concerning the rightness or wrongness of actions: consquentialist and non-consequentialist.

• A consequentialist theory judges the rightnes or wrongness of an action based on the consequences that action has. The most familiar example would be utilitarianism - ``that action is best that produces the greatest good for the greatest number'' (Jeremy Bentham).
  • Over what ``ethical community'' are the consequences to be measured? Does damage to trees count as much as damage to human beings?
    • John Stuart Mill - ``Socrates dissatisfied should have more moral weight than a pig satisfied.''

  • The criterion might be satisfied by an action that causes great harm to a small number of people while giving a small benefit to a great number.

  • Biodiversity implication - Biodiversity has instrumental value, because it can contribute to human welfare, but it has no intrinsic value.

• A non-consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action, not on its consequences.
  • Libertarianism - People should be free to do as they like as long as they respect the freedom of others to do the same.
    • Biodiversity implication - Biodiversity has instrumental value, and only to the extent that it can contribute to the expression of individual freedom.

      It might be possible to develop a libertarian theory that included the rights of non-human organisms to be ``free'', but (a) I'm not aware that it's been done³ and (b) I think it would be very difficult to do.⁴

  • Contractarianism - No policy that causes uncompensated harm to anyone is permitted (Pareto safety).
    • Biodiversity implication - Depending on how broadly the term ``anyone'' is defined⁵ biodiversity might or might not have intrinsic value. In a widely influential version of contractarianism due to John Rawls, it is very difficult to imagine how biodiversity could have intrinsic value.⁶

      Here there have been philosophers, notably ``deep ecologists'' and those promoting animal rights who have attempted to extend ethical theories that fall broadly within this realm to non-human organisms, or at least to animals.

In any case it should be clear from this brief discussion that although appeals to intrinsic value sound good and make us feel good, they are very difficult to justify philosophically.