‘Absolutism’ and ‘Consequentialism’

Abstract

The ideas that put primary weight on (a) what I do, and (b) what happens as a result of what I do, emerge in philosophical views sometimes called ‘absolutism’ and ‘consequentialism’. Of course these may be names for nothing clear or coherent; nevertheless it is convenient to use the labels as a kind of shorthand. To begin with absolutism: absolutists are supposed to claim that there are some things one ought never to do — for instance, torture another person. There are four obscurities about any such claim: briefly (a) who the ‘one’ is supposed to be, (b) what ‘ought’ is taken as meaning, (c) whether the wrongness consists in doing something, or something being done, or something happening, and (d) just what the ‘thing’ is that one ought not to do (e.g. torture).