This is made in philosophy bites with me David Edmonds and me Nigel Warburton.

Philosophy bites is available at www. Philosophy bites.

Philosophy bites is made in association with the Institute of Philosophy.

Suppose the CIA knew that Al-Qaeda was preparing a major strike and the only way it could avert

the attack was to torture a captured Al-Qaeda operative who knew the plan.

Would it be right to torture this person to save many lives?

Consequentialism is the theory that we should act so as to produce the best consequences.

It's often said that the problem with consequentialism is that it gives too quick an answer

in cases such as the one I've just given.

It permits people to be used as means to ends. It doesn't make room for

justice, for integrity, for treating people with respect. Not so, says Princeton philosopher

and consequentialist Philip Pettit. He says consequentialism can be understood in such a way that the usual

criticisms against it don't apply. We're going to focus on the topic of consequentialism.

Let's begin by just saying what consequentialism is.

What is it that makes an action or a choice the right choice to make?

The consequentialist answer is that making that choice actually The consequences the good.

the good.

Consequentialism holds the right is whatever does best by the good.

There is clearly a contrast between different consequentialist theories.

We might agree that the right choice in any choice is the one that produces the goods, but

disagree on not actually the goods are.

Consequentialism, as we think of it today anyhow, probably originates with what was called

...