mean "intended consequences," it will be enough to point out that it shares the defect which we have just found to be inherent in the view that the criterion is motive regarded solely as end. It does not take into account the feeling-disposition of the agent. And that is a fatal shortcoming.
In the latter sense, where "consequences" means "actual consequences," the theory is, of course, exposed to precisely the same criticism. And it has, in addition, other defects of its own. It is monstrous to make the rightness of an action depend on the actual consequences, for these are often not in the power of the agent. When we judge that an action is right or wrong, we are always passing a judgment at the same time on the character of the agent, whose action it is. And it is absurd to base our judgment on him on consequences over which he had no control. Of course, he may be responsible for the consequences. The evil consequences of his action may be due to his own lack of foresight and reflection. But it very frequently happens that, through no fault of his own, the actual consequences of his action are very different from those which he purposed.[1]
- ↑ Other defects in this theory might be mentioned. It is often impossible to compute the consequences of an action, even after it has been done. They are often strictly incalculable, for they are capable of influencing generations yet unborn. Who could measure the total consequences of Luther's action, in burning the Pope's Bull, or the Kaisers (if the responsibility be his) in initiating the European War? Further, even if this test were valid, it would be of use only in assessing the rightness or wrongness of actions which had already been performed. We cannot pretend to know the results of actions which are merely purposed. Hence such a test as this would be of no use to a man who was in doubt as to which of two alternative courses of action he ought to pursue.
