Consequences vs Virtue

Let’s explore consequentialism vs virtue ethics two interesting moral frameworks.

Let’s start with a thought experiment: Imagine a scenario where a man convinces a kid to jump out of a window. “Come on, just one step further, you got this” he says. But then, the building suddenly explodes. The kid survives miraculously due to jumping out of the window, and the man is hailed as a hero. But is he? What if the man had no idea the building was going to explode? It was completely unforeseen, he simply coerced a child to jump out of a window. The heroic outcome was pure chance. Yes, I know this scenario is rather unlikely, but let’s follow it through. Given the positive result, how do we determine whether this action by the man was good or bad?

Allow me to introduce you to these two doctrines.

Virtue ethics holds that the morality of an action is judged by the intention and the general character of the person performing the action. What was the intended outcome? In this case, the man’s intention was to cause harm or death to a child. This bad intention suggests a generally bad character, which makes the action completely wrong—the character outweighs the outcome.

On the other hand, consequentialism is the belief that the morality of an action is judged purely by its outcome. After all, the outcome is what directly affects the world around us, so wouldn’t that be of utmost importance? According to consequentialism, this man’s action is good because it resulted in saving a child from an explosion. But doesn’t that seem a bit fishy? To say the entire action was good despite the bad intention? How do we condemn this man if the result was beneficial?

Well, there’s more to consequences than just the immediate outcome. Let’s explore this idea with a few more thought experiments, like the trolley problem and the doctor problem, and see how they differ in terms of consequentialism.

The classic trolley problem: Is it really a discussion of morality without this philosophical staple? You know the gist: a train is barreling toward five people, and you have the opportunity to switch tracks and hit just one person. Are you more morally responsible if you switch tracks? You don’t know any of them, by the way. In my opinion, once you realize you have the option to switch tracks, you are equally responsible for the death of five or the death of one. But that seems easy: keep more people alive. So let’s switch it up a bit.

You are now a doctor with five very sick patients who need organs and on the other hand you have one healthy person. All five of these people could be saved if this one healthy person dies. Same equation, right? One healthy person to save five. While these seem like identical scenarios, here’s why they’re not the same: societal implications. What happens if healthy people can be randomly scooped off the street and have their organs harvested for others? That would lead to what kind of society? One where no one feels safe, as it’s deemed morally okay to kill the healthy for the sick.

This brings us back to our initial example: long term consequences. Do we want someone in society going around coercing kids to jump out of windows? Probably not. Consequentialism might condemn this guy as a potential threat to society in the future, despite any short-term heroic acts.

Speaking of doctors, think about House, the seemingly immoral doctor who gets the job done. So, would you rather have a doctor with good character and intentions or this guy who gets results? Personally, I’d stick with House; he achieves outcomes through unconventional means, prompting further thought into what dictates our moral judgment: character or results?