Everyone agrees that the consequences of our actions matter morally—but some people think that only the consequences matter. According to consequentialism, we ought to do what has the best consequences, and it doesn’t matter if that involves lying, or stealing, or even killing an innocent person. Nothing is forbidden for the consequentialist, all that matters is the consequences of what is done. Can this view be right? Surely there are some things that we should never do no matter what the consequences! We have here one of the fundamental disagreements in the history of moral philosophy, with deontologists, such as Kant, arguing that there are rules that should be followed even when the consequences are very bad, and some things that we must never do even if the consequences are disastrous, and consequentialists, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, arguing that we should decide what to do on the basis of consequences alone. Contemporary philosophers have not reached agreement on the issue, and a quick look at the contents of any ethics journal will confirm that we are still fighting our corners with gusto. The issue is not merely academic: the debate that is currently going on about the acceptability of torture can be understood as a debate about whether or not there are some things that are morally unjustifiable no matter what the consequences.
(Elinor Mason, "What Is Consequentialism?," Think 21 [spring 2009]: 19-28, at 19 [italics in original])
Note from KBJ: Mason says that "Contemporary philosophers have not reached agreement on the issue" of consequentialism versus deontology. But even if they had, it wouldn't follow that they are correct or that the issue is no longer worth discussing. Issues don't go away or get resolved just because a particular group of people at a particular time share a view and think alternative views false or absurd. For one thing, the reason they agree may be political rather than philosophical. (Has anyone asked whether the "consensus" among scientists that the globe is warming is rooted in politics rather than science? How do we know that it's not rooted in politics?) All of which is to say that truth is not a matter of nose-counting. Neither philosophy nor science is a democracy.
