I actually won a prize for this one!!!

"The Morality of an Action is Best Judged by its Consequences" Discuss.

Two of the great opposing schools of thought on the subject of consequentialism are utilitarianism, which emphasises the importance of considering the consequences when making a moral judgement, and Kant's deontology, which suggests that the consequences are irrelevant and we should act in accordance with certain rules.
The principle of utility, the defining doctrine of classical utilitarianism, states that an action should be judged right or wrong "according to the tendency which it appears to have . . . to promote or oppose happiness." (Bentham) Thus the only thing to consider when making an ethical judgement is whether or not a certain action will increase the net amount of happiness in the world[1], in other words what its consequences will be.
There are several problems with this position. Whilst a world where everybody seeks to increase the net amount of happiness seems appealing, classical utilitarianism offers no reason to protect any minority which might stand in the way of the happiness of the majority. For example, if a man knew he could get away with committing adultery, classical utilitarianism seems to suggest he is right to do so. His happiness will increase, and, as no-one will find out, no suffering will be caused. This point highlights two problems with classical utilitarianism.
Firstly, most of us are likely to feel that the man's action is wrong, even if it leads to an overall increase in happiness. Intention, not to mention an instinctive feeling of right and wrong, seem to be factors which we wish to consider in making any moral judgement.
Secondly, we could think that the man has no way of really knowing that he will not be caught. We can rarely guarantee to predict accurately every consequence of our actions. Even if we could be reasonably certain that all the immediate effects of our pulling a child out from in front of a bus would be positive, if this child turns out to be Hitler we have in fact (according to classical utilitarianism) done a terrible wrong. Admittedly Bentham stated that an action should be judged "according to the tendency which it appears to have" to promote happiness, but he is not clear as to exactly how far ahead we can or should look.
The second problem is resolved to some extent by rule utilitarianism, which suggests that as we can never know all the consequences of our actions, we should follow certain guidelines which are likely to result in more happiness in the long term. However, the first problem remains unresolved, and even rule utilitarianism offers no reason why we should follow the rules if we believe we can get away with breaking them.
Clearly then there are serious flaws in utilitarianism as an ethical theory. However, when we turn to Kant's deontology we will see that difficulties of a similar magnitude are caused when we base our decisions on intention alone.
Kant saw the flaws in utilitarianism which have already been outlined. He therefore tried to create a system which judged the morality of an action by the intentions behind it. But Kant went even further in his rejection of utilitarianism. He would not allow that a good intention is one which intends a good consequence. The logic of his position is made clear in the following example: A nurse, caring for a man terminally ill and terrified of pain but refusing to accept voluntary euthanasia might inject the man with an overdose of drugs in his sleep. The nurse has thereby saved both the man and his family a great deal of suffering, and may well have been acting only from a desire to do good. However, involuntary euthanasia is unlikely to be something we could accept as right, and Kant certainly could not.
So Kant suggested that the key thing which makes us human is autonomy, and that any rational being would want to be autonomous. It is not rational to demand that others respect our right to autonomy whilst denying it to them, therefore unless we wish to give up our right; we must respect others' (according to Kant only rational beings are capable of autonomy). From this, Kant created his categorical imperative: "Act only on maxims which you would wish to be universalised" (Kant). In effect, he is saying "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" (Jesus).
This position has many advantages. It is universal, giving a moral code for all times and cultures. It has at its centre a respect for individual rights. However, it goes too far in emphasising the role of intention. According to Kant, so long as we act according to the categorical imperative, we have done the right thing, even if the consequences are disastrous. For example, a man in soviet Russia married to a political dissident would (according to Kant) be wrong to lie to the police about his wife's whereabouts, as this would suggest he was willing that lying become common practice. However, it would be hard for any of us to accept that lying to save his wife was wrong. So has the categorical imperative failed? Not entirely. The man (and we) cannot will that "lying" become common practice, but we could will that "lying to save innocent lives" be universalised. Unfortunately, to apply some version of the categorical imperative in this way we would have to take into account the likely consequences of our actions, which Kant never permitted (when asked a question very similar to the example which I have used, he suggested that it was still wrong to lie).
There seem to be no major theories which show how to combine a concern for both consequences and intentions. Virtue theory can appear to suggest a solution, as a virtue theorist would accept that if we even unintentionally cause suffering we are likely to feel bad (so we need to consider the consequences of our actions carefully), and we certainly will not achieve eudaimonia by going around intending to cause harm. However, virtue theory makes no allowance for the fact that there may be people who would be truly fulfilled by doing evil deeds; according to virtue theory, there is nothing immoral about their actions, which idea we are probably uncomfortable with. Other ethical theories such as intuitionism and all the non-cognitivist theories leave no room at all for a debate on consequentialism. The former states that we instinctively know what is right or wrong, meaning that we do not need to consider either the consequences of our actions or their motivations (And indeed we would be wrong to do so. The intuitionists say that it is always an "open question" as to whether an action is moral, even after all the facts of the matter have been considered.) and the latter group state that there is no right or wrong; our actions are neither moral nor immoral. Neither of these points of view is really acceptable. Intuitionism ignores the fact that people frequently suffer from moral dilemmas, when what is right is not clear at all. Some sort of decision procedure is needed. Most of us meanwhile will not be happy with the non- cognitivists' position, as most of us do wish for some sort of moral code.
It seems clear that we cannot ignore the role of either intentions or consequences in judging the morality of an action. Some synthesis of the two is needed. A version of the categorical imperative which allowed for a consideration of the consequences of our actions might, perhaps, be a way forward. ----------------------- [1] Utilitarians considered the amount of happiness overall to be the important factor, not the happiness of an individual.