Consequism
Simply put, consequism is similar to consequentialism but it bases values on benefits instead of "morals".
Consequism is a hypothesis or system within value theory, that starts with a distinction between moral value and consequist value. Consequism postulates that truly valuable values are based on essential consequences (or arbitarily defines value as such). Various consequist theories attempt to distinguish or define what is beneficial or detrimental, although consequism uses terms like "beneficial" generically, without assuming any of those definitions. Consequism therefore can evaluate choices, moral systems, etc, in terms of their valuable/beneficial intentions or consequences. Consequism defines a number of terms (listed below) relative to each other, in an orderly system. Consequism may be based on sentientism.
Contents
Moral values vs consequist values[edit]
Consequism draws a distinction between moral values and consequist values. Benefits are valuable. Compared to "righteousness", benevolence seems more meaningful, less ambiguous, easier to define, and less prone to a moralistic fallacy or favoritism. This is one difference between consequism and consequentialism. See also consequence.
Similarly, consequist omnibenevolence may differ from popular definitions of omnibenevolence.
Benefit and relative definitions[edit]
Saying that an act is "beneficial" means that it is beneficial to anyone (including the acter). To say that and act is "benevolent" means that it benefits other persons. Being "benevolent" differs from being "altruistic" in that an act that is mutually-beneficial is benevolent but not altruistic.
Detriment and relative definitions[edit]
"Detriment" can also be a verb in consequism. To say that someone "detriments" means they suffer a detriment; just like to say that someone "benefits" means to enjoy a benefit. To say that Jeff "detrimented" Steve, means that Jeff caused Steve a detriment.
Saying that an act is "detrimental" means that it is detrimental to anyone (including the acter). To say that an act is "malevolent" means that it detriments other persons. Being "malevolent" differs from being "exploitive" in that an act that is mutually-beneficial could be "exploitive" but it could not be "malevolent".
Neologized definition of "exploit"[edit]
The consequist definition of "exploitation" is somewhat neologized. "Redefining" an existing word can cause confusion unless you can specify the definition you are using, with a link or footnote, when you use that neologized word.
Arguments for neologisizing the word "exploit": To "exploit" is to disregard the interests of the exploited, but it may be often the case (at least when exploiting humans) that the way to gain the most benefit for yourself is to benefit (eg trade with) those you aim to exploit. See game theory. Thus it seemed to be a good definition of "exploit", although "exploit" is probably more often used to imply the malevolent form of exploitation.
Consequist calculus[edit]
One form of consequist calculus is hedonic calculus, but consequist calculus usually includes other benefit types besides pleasure. Quens can be used in consequist calculus.
Quen-- ben, det, and nucon[edit]
A quen is a "single unit" of consequence. Bens, dets, and nucons are all types of quens.
A ben is a "single unit" of benefit. A ben is the smallest amount of benefit that is necessary to be distinguished for a practical purpose. A ben is defined according to these factors:
- What essential consequence
- Whose benefit (who benefits)
- The duration of the benefit's actualization. (the beginning time and ending time)
A det is the opposite of a ben. A det is a single unit of detriment and it's defined as you might expect.
- What essential consequence
- Whose detriment (who detriments)
- What time the detriment is experienced
A nucon is a neutral consequence (a play on "nutron"). Nucons are either considered to be insignificant or not beneficial or detrimental enough to be distinguishable as such.
