Ethics

If a mother gives birth to a person who goes on to become a serial killer, has she done something immoral? Wouldn't a Utilitarian say that the act of giving birth to that child will decrease the general level of happiness? Great site by the way.

Comments

There are different versions of Utilitarianism. Some judge actions by their actual consequences, others by their foreseeable, or expected consequences. All judge actions in comparison with alternative possible actions. I doubt that the act of giving birth had any possible alternatives. However, you could just as easily ask your question about the act of conception, or rather the sex that led to the conception. Utilitarians who judge actions by their foreseeable consequences would not judge the conception of a serial killer to have been wrong, unless it could somehow have been foreseen that the resultant person would be a serial killer. Utilitarians who judge actions by their actual consequences might well say that the conception was wrong, but they would add that it was not blameworthy. Utilitarians, and consequentialists generally, distinguish between the morality of an action and the character of an agent. It is perfectly possible for a good or right action to reflect badly on the agent, or for a bad or wrong action to reflect well on an agent. The most common examples of this involve the kind of unforeseeability at the heart of your example. Consider a policeman guarding Nelson Mandella. Suppose the policeman shoots a would-be assassin, thus preventing him from killing Nelson Mandela. This would seem to be a pretty good action. Now suppose we discover that the policeman knew nothing about the assassin, and was trying to kill Nelson Mandela himself, but was a lousy shot. The action is still good, but it is no longer praiseworthy. It doesn't reflect well on the policeman's character.

Read another response by Alastair Norcross

Read another response about Ethics