Difficulty of Predicting Consequences

The criticism that Utilitarianism is difficult or impossible to apply since we cannot predict the consequences of our actions.

 

Sometimes the consequences we intend may not turn out to be the actual consequences that happen following our action. For example, imagine an armed intruder bursts into a crowded coffee shop attempting to rob it. Bob predicts that he can maximise happiness by wrestling the intruder and taking the gun. However, in the struggle the gun accidentally fires and kills an innocent person. In this example the actual consequence is different from the intended consequence, and was not predicted by Bob, yet he is morally responsible. This is a problem for utilitarianism because it is unrealistic to expect people to be able to accurately predict the consequences of their actions because there are often unforeseen circumstances, and it seems unfair to hold people morally responsible for something they have so little control over.

 

There are two further problems with consequences: how we should balance local vs. global consequences and short term vs. long term consequences.

 

Local consequences are those that affect a specific group of people or area and global consequences are those that go beyond this to affect a larger group or more areas. For example, imagine Oliver who is trying to secure a teaching job in a secondary school. Two jobs come up and both schools offer him permanent positions but he chooses one over the other because one is closer to his house. The school he turned down then offers the job to Hamish who is not as good a teacher as Oliver and really doesn’t like children. The local consequences of Oliver’s action are the direct effects on the people involved, so he is thrilled he’s finally got a job, his partner is happy he’s got a stable income, the pupils are happy to have such a committed new teacher. The global consequences would be how Oliver’s decision affects a broader group, for example, the pupils at the school he turned down are now less happy because their new teacher isn’t very good.

 

Short term consequences are those that happen immediately or soon after an action and longer term consequences occur some time later. Consider an example. Jessica has been invited to a party hosted by some much older students. She is eager to go but is nervous to go alone so she asks her friend Katy to go with her. Katy worries about Jessica going alone but she knows her parents would not allow it and she decides not to go. The short term consequences of Katy’s action are the immediate effects, so Jessica might be upset with Katy, her parents are glad she’s safe at home, and Katy manages to get some homework done. The long term consequences occur some time later, so perhaps Jessica asks another friend, Bea, to go with her instead who then gets into trouble with her parents, who are then upset and stop her being friends with Jessica, and so on.

 

The problem here for the utilitarian is that it is unclear exactly which consequences Oliver and Katy are morally responsible for. Is Oliver morally responsible for the fact that the pupils in another school are unhappy with their teacher, a global consequence of his decision not to work there? Is Katy morally responsible for the fact that Jessica and Bea are no longer friends? It seems like if we say yes, we have to say they are morally responsible for much more than they could have predicted. It may seem unreasonable to blame them for this. However, if we say they are not morally responsible for these consequences, then we need to explain why not. The utilitarian claims the consequences of our actions determine whether they are right or wrong, but which consequences? 

There are a few ways a utilitarian can reply to the ‘difficulty of predicting consequences’ criticism. First, they might say that in many cases we can accurately predict the possible consequences of our actions. So even though Bob intended to stop the robber, it’s reasonable to expect him to consider other likely possibilities, like the gun going off accidentally if he were to wrestle him. In other words, he could have predicted it. We use our past experiences to make these kinds of predictions everyday and while no outcome is guaranteed, we can get pretty good at it. They might also reply that you should only be responsible for those consequences that flow directly from your action or that you can reasonably foresee. So if, after several years of working at the job that Oliver turned down, Hamish accidentally sets fire to his classroom, we would clearly not hold Oliver responsible because it is not a direct consequence of his choice to turn down the job, nor could we reasonably expect him to have predicted it.