Naive vs. sophisticated consequentialism
Naive consequentialism is the view that, to comply with the requirements of consequentialism, an agent should at all times be motivated to perform the act that consequentialism requires. By contrast, sophisticated consequentialism holds that a consequentialist agent should adopt whichever set of motivations willwill, in fact, cause her to in fact act in ways required by consequentialism.that consequentialism requires.
As for a concrete example, a naive conception of consequentialism may lead onean agent to believe that itbreaking certain commonsense moral rules is right to break rules if it seems that the immediate effects on the world wouldwill be net-positive. Such rule-breaking normallytypically has negative side-effects, however - e.g.however—for instance, it can lower the degree of trust in society, and for the rule-breaker’s group in particular - which means thatspecifically. Hence, sophisticated consequentialism tendsconsequentialists tend to beoppose rule-breaking more opposed to rule-breaking than naive consequentialism.consequentialists.
Consequentialists are supposedNaive consequentialism is the view that, to estimatecomply with the requirements of consequentialism, an agent should at all oftimes be motivated to perform the effects of their actions, and then add them up appropriately. This meansact that they cannot just look at the direct and immediate effects of their actions, but also have to look at indirect and less immediate effects. Failing to do so amounts to applying naive consequentialism. That is to be contrasted with requires. By contrast, sophisticated consequentialism, which appropriately takes indirect holds that a consequentialist agent should adopt whichever set of motivations will cause her to in fact act in ways required by consequentialism.
Terminology
Sometimes the terms "sophisticated consequentialism" and "naive consequentialism" are used to describe the contrast between applications of consequentialism that do and do not, respectively, consider less immediate effectsdirect, less immediate, or otherwise less visible consequences into account.[1]
Christiano, Paul (2016)Ord, Toby (2009) Integrity for consequentialistsBeyond Action: Applying Consequentialism to Decision Making and Motivation, The Sideways View, November 14.Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford.
- ^
Cf. 80,000 Hours’ discussion of “simplistic” vs. “correct” replaceability
(Todd,in Todd, Benjamin (2015) ‘Replaceability’ isn’t as important as you might think (or we’ve suggested), 80,000 Hours, July27).27.
Consequentialists are supposed to estimate all of the effects of their actions, and then add them up appropriately. This means that they cannot just look at the direct and immediate effects of their actions, but also have to look at indirect and less immediate effects. Failing to do so amounts to applying naive consequentialism. That is to be contrasted with sophisticated consequentialism, which appropriately takes indirect and less immediate effects into account (cf. the discussion on “simplistic” vs. “correct” replaceability on 80,000 Hours’ blogaccount.[1]).
- ^
Todd,Cf. 80,000 Hours’ discussion of “simplistic” vs. “correct” replaceability (Todd, Benjamin (2015) ‘Replaceability’ isn’t as important as you might think (or we’ve suggested), 80,000 Hours, July27.27).
As for a concrete example, a naive conception of consequentialism may lead one to believe that it is right to break rules if it seems that that would have net positivethe immediate effects on the world.world would be net-positive. Such rule-breaking normally has negative side-effects, however - e.g. it can lower the degree of trust in society, and for the rule-breaker’s group in particular - which means that sophisticated consequentialism tends to be more opposed to rule-breaking than naive consequentialism.
Caviola, Lucius (2017). Against naive effective altruism, EAGx Berlin, November 20.
This seems a bit inaccurate to me in a few ways, but I'm unsure how accurate we want to be here.
First, when the entry talks about "consequentialism" it seems to identify it with a decision procedure: "Consequentialists are supposed to estimate all of the effects of their actions, and then add them up appropriately". In the literature, there is usually a distinction made between consequentialism as a criterion of rightness and a decision procedure, and it seems to me like many endorse the latter and not the former.
Secondly, it seems to identify consequentialism with act-consequentialism, because it only refers to consequences of individual actions as the criterion for evaluation.