There’s more than two kinds, because we also care about intentions and rule following.
Consequentialism as a term was introduced by Anscombe, at the same time as making an argument against it:
we want to apportion praise and blame in relation to someone’s character and intentions....but the consequences of actions taken in isolation aren’t much related to character and intentions.
Punishing someone for an unintended and unexpected negative consequence seems unreasonable..what lesson could they learn? Punishing people for failing to follow rules that generally lead to good consequences is much fairer, since they can predict when they are going to get punished.
But consequentialists kind of acknowledge the usefulness of rules , in that they don’t object to the basic idea of a legal system .
There’s more than two kinds, because we also care about intentions and rule following.
Consequentialism as a term was introduced by Anscombe, at the same time as making an argument against it: we want to apportion praise and blame in relation to someone’s character and intentions....but the consequences of actions taken in isolation aren’t much related to character and intentions.
Punishing someone for an unintended and unexpected negative consequence seems unreasonable..what lesson could they learn? Punishing people for failing to follow rules that generally lead to good consequences is much fairer, since they can predict when they are going to get punished.
But consequentialists kind of acknowledge the usefulness of rules , in that they don’t object to the basic idea of a legal system .