Judge each act by its results

Personal & Social Development · Ethics & Philosophy · ages 16-18

Name ______________________ Date ____________

A council can fund treatment A saving 100 healthy years or treatment B saving 60. What should it fund?
- Treatment A, since it saves the most
- Treatment B, since change feels safer
- Neither, since maths feels cold
What makes an act right on the consequentialist view?
- It follows old traditions
- Its results produce the best total outcome
- It feels like a brave choice
Consequentialism judges an act by its motives rather than its results.
Circle one: True False
What does consequentialism leave out of its verdicts?
- Intentions and duties toward people
- Counting and comparing totals
- Hospitals and council budgets
Framing one innocent person would calm a riot and save twenty lives. What is the standard objection to the maths verdict?
- It costs too much money
- It saves too few lives
- It treats a person as a mere total in the sum
How do rule followers dodge verdicts like framing the innocent?
- They stop counting outcomes at all
- They judge the rule, which pays off across thousands of cases
- They let one judge decide every case
Critics say a rule with exceptions is just case by case thinking in disguise. What does that charge mean?
- The repair collapses back into judging single acts
- Rules never work in any form
- Exceptions are always wicked
A mayor funds fewer total healthy years to favour her own street. A consequentialist objects. Why?
- Mayors must never spend money
- Streets do not deserve clinics
- Everyone counts equally, so favouring neighbours breaks the sum

Answer key

For grown-ups. Fold this page away before handing over the rest.

Treatment A, since it saves the most · Fixed budget, equal counting, biggest total. Treatment A wins on the only measure this view allows.
Its results produce the best total outcome · Only results count here. Traditions and feelings drop out of the verdict entirely.
False · False. Motives drop out. Only what follows from the act feeds the verdict.
Intentions and duties toward people · The sum sees outcomes, never wills or obligations. That blind spot is exactly what rivals attack.
It treats a person as a mere total in the sum · Our firmest convictions rebel here. A person used as arithmetic feels wrong even when the sum glows.
They judge the rule, which pays off across thousands of cases · Never punish the innocent earns trust everywhere, even if breaking it once looks tempting on paper.
The repair collapses back into judging single acts · Each exception reopens the original maths. The rule then adds nothing beyond what act thinking already did.
Everyone counts equally, so favouring neighbours breaks the sum · Equal counting is the heart of the method. A thumb on the scales for neighbours corrupts the total.