Do unintended consequences (foreseen or unforeseen) refute consequentialism? Consequentialism being the branch of normative ethics that says actions should be judged by their consequences.
No comprendo, senor. Absolutely not, I think. Wait a minute, do you mean to say that consequentialism only be a usable ethic if humans could predict all consequences of their actions?
Possibly…in a sense that because one did not influence or predict, in an unforseen consequence, one has no control of the consequence and would therefore void the validity of their action. On the other hand, if it was forseen and action was not taken, it would imply a degree of apathy or slothfulness on the individual for not taking initiative to change “fate”.
Consequentialism:
“The view that the value of an action derives solely from the value of its consequences.”
Courtesy of dictionary.reference.com/
I think unintended consequences confirm consequentialism; or at least, that people think in consequentialist ways. People change their minds about the value of an action based on the consequences as they reveal themselves. An action initially thought noble and wise may be disparaged later if it brings bad consequences.
I think unintended consequences show that your intentions don’t make a hill of beans- stuff happens…
-Imp
The issue of unintended consequences is after-the-fact analysis of the predictive power of consequentialism. How important unintended consequences are depends heavily on the investment in a stable value set at the time of predicting a particular outcome or ‘consequence’ of the evolution of a group of variables. Should perceived values change within the predictive time allotted, then the consequences may be viewed negatively or ‘unintended’.
Consequentialism has two credibility problems: It must account for all variables above the threshold of acceptable to prevent the ‘unintended’ negative reaction as aporia points out, and it must avoid the blanket rationalization Imp sees - "shtuff happens.’
Actually, a third issue comes to mind. We have a great tendency to explain away unintended consequences working our rationalizations backward from the conclusion or consequences. The famous WMD fiasco is a good example of that.
I agree with aporia that it is an almost ingrained habit for people to construct effect>cause relationship. For consequentialism to have credibility, it must come in it’s ability to predict - and no surprises. 
If you say the volcano is going to blow, then it better blow…
This was my first response.
A better question might be ‘does revisionism refute consequentialism’, that is, if it is possible to reassess the consequences of an action in an indefinite series of reinterpretations then each particular interpretations reveals itself as merely that.
I think we must also keep in mind something that I do not clearly see expressed here - except, indirectly, by Imp. “Consequentialism” describes a feature of certain moral theories, and is not a moral theory itself, strictly speaking. Utilitarianism, which is perhaps the most prominent consequentialist view (under most formulations) will probably be accepted or rejected on grounds other than its consequentialism.
I think that Marshall has asked a question without enough context to allow the answer to be fully meaningful. At least to me. I read Imp as having more or less the same view, and if that is the case, I agree with his assessment.
Wow! I can remember when I had more posts than anyone else. You guys have been busy.
That is as narrow as I can express it. I am a consequentialist, with no leanings towards deontology, utilitarianism, et cetera. Virtue ethics, however, appeals to me somewhat. Many people have written much more about much less, so much so that Ortega Gassett could say that “A specialist is a person that knows everything about nothing.” in the revolt of the masses
Let’s concentrate on unforeseen consequences. A lack of knowledge/experience which results in a bad decision probably speaks more about our lack of knowledge/experience than it does about consequentialism. We are imperfect beings making imperfect decisions.
I guess the question I should have asked is: “Given that actions can have unforeseen an unintended consequences, should actions still be judged by their consequences.” This is more literal and to the point.
I truly don’t see how any sort of consequentialism can work. Once you try and connect judgement to the temporal line, we get the kind of intentended actions you talk about. In other words, tbe causal police have quite a long arm which stretches back far enough to refute any sort of attempt.
This is not to say Utilitarianism is ‘bad’, as me and Faust talked about - it’s the best we have.
Personally though, I suscribe to a type of stoicism-ism. It’s not whether we’re writing the book, but rather, our demeanor as we read it. Life is a book - don’t read it half assed.
if causes are prescribed to consequences (although there is no logical reason to do so- there is no cause and effect) then sure, actions could be judged by their consequences from a pramatic standpoint. that is it is, strictly speaking, useful to society to believe and function as if cause and effect is logical and that one is responsible for the effects that one (however illogically) causes. “should” requires one to adopt a moral or ethical position before judging.
-Imp
Gobbo - for the record, I am a social contract guy and not a utilitarian.
Marshall - I wish to tell you a story. Before I do, I will tell you that the answer to your question is a fair distance away at this point, and that finding it will require some patience. I will also tell you, as I do not want you to experience any undue suspense, that the story ends rather tragically. In brief, all the women and children die. It’s that old, tried and true lifeboat story. It’s a classic for a reason.
We have a boat, out in a cold sea, some distance from land, on which are ten men, fifteen women and twenty children. We have a lifeboat which will hold eighteen hudred pounds, which is the weight of any of these groups - ten men, fifteen women, or twenty children - please check my math to see if this is plausible.
The boat is taking on water, and the bilge pumps are not operational, nor is the radio. No call for help is possible. The boat is sinking. It is a dark and stormy night. A decision must be made about who goes into the lifeboat, and it is made under the assumption that this is the only likely means of survival for anyone. Through some horrific oversight, there are no lifejackets on board.
Now there is that old rule about women and children first. But I wish to leave aside the actual method used in the decision, if you have no objection. That is, I wish to leave open the question of which specific rule is applied. But I will remind you that the women and the children together will not fit into the boat. Only one group or the other will, or of course some group comprised of a little of each.
In the event, it is decided that all the children will be put into the lifeboat. It is considered a reasonable assumption that they will eventually be rescued - the boat is not so far from land that this is seen as unlikely. So, off they go, amid tearful goodbyes, and any other dramatic device you may wish to inject.
The boat continues to sink, and despite the best efforts of the remaining personages on board, the bilge pumps remain unoperational. In desperation, it is decided that the women will jump into the sea, as the boat is about to sink anyway, and it is feared that it would be more dangerous near the boat as it goes down than it would be to get into the water before it does. Suction, the possibility of explosion as the engines are immersed, what have you. I will admit that I might require some technical assistance here, but I beg your indulgence. In any event, off they go.
Minutes later, just before all hope seems lost, the bilge pumps roar into action. You guessed it - the boat is saved. But the children and the women, due to the dark and stormy night, have drifted away. They are gone.
I will save you the gruesome details of how the men find out for sure that the women and children are indeed dead. Suffice it to say that they are.
I wish also to ask you to consider, in any reply you, or anyone else, may wish to give to this post, replacing the word “unintended” with “unexpected” - as to results, that is, despite that you may think these synonyms in this case. My reason for that is merely so as not to make it seem that I am trying to trick anyone, regardless of how impotent such trickery may seem. For I do not claim that I am able to deceive you in any way, but only that I do not wish to.
How are we to judge the actions of the persons on this boat, on that dark and stormy night, out in the cold, black sea?
This is not the complete scenario that I wish to present, but I think I am running out of space, and i know I am running out of coke.
Marshall re-phrases,
I guess I’m a bit of a pragmatist here. Given the likelyhood of imperfect knowing of all possible variables, some portion or all of the consequences can be ‘unintentional’. Certainty simply isn’t available.
You ask if actions should be judged, which implies either a moral or ethical position prior to and separate from any particular consequence.
Pragmatically, a consequence is the result of an action - period. The value, rightness or wrongness, works - doesn’t work, is the critical issue. The consequence of any action is neutral until you assign value.
Consequence may be the vehicle for after-the-fact judgement, but it does not and cannot be the value system, it can only be a reflection of a value system.
So where would you like to go from here? 
This is tangential, but what do you mean by “there is no cause and effect”? It sounds rather Nietzschean, but I’m not sure what to make of it. I can think of a million scenarios that seem to be causes and effects. What is your understanding of, say, a rock hitting a window at high speed (cause) and the window shattering (effect)?
My understanding would be that a rock reaches a point where the window is also present and the window, at that point in time, changes it’s physical structure as the rock continues through.
Where is the causal mechanism? We see the events happening (consistently repetitive) but why doesn’t the window start laughing when the rock hits it?
Science is like a fortune teller who is always wrong. If she says you -will- get hit by a bus today are you going to take a nap on the highway? ← That’s why we question it.
Where is the causal mechanism?
it actually is hume but nietzsche did take up the idea and ran with it.
there is no logical connection between events.
once again… "Hume did ask the question of causality:
“x causes y” where x is the event of billiard ball a striking billiard ball b and y is the event of ball b moving after being struck…
is the sentence “x causes y” analytic? no, because it is possible to conceive of a striking b, and b not moving…
is the sentence “x causes y” synthetic? one may claim it is, but Hume analyzed the concept further, breaking it into 3 parts, priority, contiguity and necessary connection… priority could be traced to sense impression, x preceeded y; same with contiguity, x contacted y… but no matter how many times Hume observed ball a strike ball b, he could not find any NECESSARY CONNECTION… the fact that if x happens, y MUST happen… without this necessary connection, causality made no sense… Hume demonstrated that when we claim that one thing a causes another b, we are only reporting on our EXPECTATION that a will be followed by b… this is a psychological fact about us and not a fact about the world… this is the problem of induction… what makes us so certain that the future will behave like the past? because it has always happened that way in the past begs the question… Must it do so in the future just because it has always has in the past? what guarantees that the “laws of nature” will hold tomorrow? there is no analytic or synthetic guarantee of this… "
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … sc&start=0
pay particular attention to the dialouge between Membrain and myself.
Hume remains unrefuted
-Imp