more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
For consequentialists there will be nothing that it will not be right to do to a perfectly innocent individual, if that is the only way of preventing another agent from doing more things of the same kind.
Gist of Idea
Consequentialists can hurt the innocent in order to prevent further wickedness
Source
Philippa Foot (Utilitarianism and the Virtues [1985], p.61)
Book Ref
Foot,Philippa: 'Moral Dilemmas' [OUP 2002], p.61
A Reaction
This is her generalised version that Williams dramatised as Jim and the Indians. Roughly, if you achieve a good outcome, it matters little how it is achieved. Foot sees consequentialism as the main problem with utilitarianism.
22458 | Consequentialists can hurt the innocent in order to prevent further wickedness [Foot] |
22459 | For consequentialism, it is irrational to follow a rule which in this instance ends badly [Foot] |
22460 | Why might we think that a state of affairs can be morally good or bad? [Foot] |
22461 | Good outcomes are not external guides to morality, but a part of virtuous actions [Foot] |
22462 | We should speak the truth, but also preserve and pursue it [Foot] |
22463 | Morality is seen as tacit legislation by the community [Foot] |
22464 | The idea of a good state of affairs has no role in the thought of Aristotle, Rawls or Scanlon [Foot] |