Impacts of Consequentialism on Language

Citation

Nnaemedo, B. (2026). Impacts of Consequentialism on Language. International Journal of Research, 13(4), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.26643/ijr/edupub/24

Bartholomew Nnaemedo

Abia State University, Uturu,

Department of Religious Studies/Philosophy

nnaemedo.bartholomew@abiastateuniversity.edu.ng

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2691-7890

Abstract

In their attempts to evaluate human acts, scholars have proposed many theories. One such theory is consequentialism, an ethical framework that emphasises outcomes as the fundamental determinants of the rightness or wrongness of an action. This theory has certain positive values as it helps to sustain human actions, including language. Besides, it has negative values. Thus, this paper examined the influence of consequentialism on language. In particular, it examined its impacts on language use, assessment, and control. Based on Wittgenstein’s language game, Austin’s theory of illocutionary acts, and Waldron’s criticisms of hate speech, this paper argues that, despite its positive linguistic values, consequentialism undermines language, thereby corrupting rather than improving it. Also, this paper used conceptual analysis as its theoretical framework. This mode of analysis decomposed the topic into its components and then used the essential aspects to interpret it. Besides, it relied on the data from extant literature and the author’s intuition to further the analysis. The results showed that though consequentialism has some positive values, it adversely affects language in the area of language use, evaluation, and regulation. Therefore, this paper concluded that framing human action solely in terms of consequentialism poses dangers to language, as issues affecting language use, evaluation, and regulation could lead to language corruption and disfigurement. Subsequently, this paper advocated hybridisation of ethical theories, one that evaluates the nature of an action and its outcome.

Keywords: Consequentialism; Human Acts; Influence; Language; Outcome

Introduction

From its inception, philosophy has been pivotal in guiding human action. In particular, philosophy has developed many theories not only to critique excesses of human acts but also to guide them along the safest rational path. One way it has maintained this critical posture is through its ethical frameworks. Through them, it has proposed some theoretical frameworks as templates for moral evaluation. Among these moral bulwarks are virtue theory (Plato, 1997; Aristotle, 2009; MacIntyre, 2007), deontological theory (Kant, 2015), utilitarianism (Bentham, 2017; Mill, 2009), hedonism (Aristippus), and consequentialism (Bentham, 2017; Fletcher, 1966). It also includes a host of modern theories, such as psychoanalytic (Freud, 1961), behavioural (Skinner, 1953), cognitive-developmental (Piaget, 1950), the theory of moral judgment (Piaget, 1932), social learning (Bandura, 1977), psychosocial (Erikson, 1950), cognitive moral development (Kohlberg, 1981), Gilligan’s theory of moral development (Galligan, 1982), and sociocultural theories (Vygotsky, 1986). These ethical theories are as important in the preceding era as they are today, if not more so. Especially given that contemporary society is marked by significant scientific and technological development, as evidenced by the emergence of artificial intelligence, digital media, and digital humanity with its attendant netizens, among others. Moreso, given that the thrust of scientific evolution toward a global developmental stage requires a corresponding philosophical intervention. Thus, philosophy must continue to sound an alarm and develop strategies to counter the excesses of human acts even in the contemporary era.

In particular, this paper shines a spotlight on consequentialism, an ethical theory which holds that the goodness or rightness of an act depends on its outcome or consequence. Nonetheless, it is not a critique of consequentialism in general. Instead, it delved into an underexplored area: consequentialism and language. Hence, this paper investigates the implications of consequentialism on language. However, before probing that, it suffices to conceptualise the term ‘consequentialism’.

Consequentialism

Consequentialism bases an act’s goodness or wrongness on its consequences. It is also known as teleological theory or proportionalism. Therefore, it implies that when the outcome is good and desirable, it is morally right; the reverse is true when it is morally wrong. Nevertheless, it is vital to note that consequentialism dates back to Socrates, as evident in Plato’s dialogue, Republic. Book I of this work contains Plato’s (1997) critique of Thrasymachus’ thesis that might is right, which implies that the end justifies the means; a short way of saying that consequence validates an action. In Book II, Plato also refuted the argument of Glaucon, where Glaucon used the Rings of Gyges to justify that people’s failure to adopt unjust means to achieve a desired end is predicated on the detectability of the means. The implication is that if the means are untraceable, people will surely deploy them to achieve their set goals. Subsequently, justice will be to the advantage of the stronger. In the modern era, consequentialism was promoted by Bentham (2017), who projected and popularised a utilitarian model of consequentialism.

Joseph Fletcher is also one of the foremost representatives of consequentialism in the modern era, as evidenced by his 1966 work, Situation Ethics (Fletcher, 1966). He dismissed legalism and antinomianism as bases of moral evaluation, as they promote unbending adherence to law and lawlessness, respectively. For instance, he portrayed legalism’s strict fidelity to the principle of fiat justitia ruat caelum (do the right, even if heaven falls). It implies that the spirit of the law takes precedence over its letter. Therefore, he opted for situationism, proposing four principles to support it: pragmatism, relativism, positivism, and personalism. These four principles resonate with workability, rejection of absolute goodness or badness, an empirical approach, and a tendency toward human well-being. So, situationism presents itself as a critique of what it regarded as the legalism of traditional Christian morality. It emphasises that natural law morality anchors moral evaluation in static, unchanging human nature (Nnaemedo, 2023). Nonetheless, situationism poses some challenges, especially regarding altruism. So, from the perspective of the performance of human acts requiring sacrifice, adhering to situationism undermines self-sacrifice, given that situationism emphasises acting in accordance with the prevailing situation. Thus, it excludes taking measures not captured in the situational setting.

In the contemporary era, Singer’s (2009) speciesism is another concrete attempt to promote utilitarianism, a type of consequentialism, in how we treat animals, aiming to increase their pleasure and reduce their pain. That means the consequences of an action determine whether to perform it. Singer (2019) also advanced a similar utilitarian argument, arguing that ending world poverty requires saving the life of one person, using the example of saving a drowning child to illustrate the concept of effective altruism and the idea of donating 10% of one’s earnings. All these instances aim to advance utilitarianism.

Likewise, Macaskill (2022) advocated utilitarianism through his concept of longtermism, which argued for positively considering future generations in the scheme of things. He sustained that doing so should constitute a fundamental moral precedence of our time. Therefore, Macaskill (2022) maintained that the “future people count, but we rarely count them (n.d.). Subsequently, he stressed the need to plan and leave a better life package for them. Hence, he insists that “by abandoning the tyranny of the present over the future, we can act as trustees—helping to create a flourishing world for generations to come” (n.d.). What he implied is that the present generation should leave a legacy of fortune to the incoming generation. This legacy is one founded on utilitarianism.

It is also worth noting that consequentialism is of two types: act and rule consequentialism. The former evaluates moral behaviour by its outcomes or consequences, while the latter judges it by the rule. In other words, for act consequentialism, the rightness or wrongness of an action rests on its outcome or on the consequence. In contrast, rule consequentialism applies the morality of an action to the rule that leads to the desired consequences.

Consequentialism has positive values, as an expected outcome of a human action helps achieve it. Nonetheless, it has some defects. Its primary defect is that it lacks a generally accepted criterion for all moral evaluation, given that contemporary society comprises people of diverse ideologies. Knowing and evaluating the proximate and remote consequences of people’s actions is also challenging.

Basic tenets of consequentialism

The basic assumptions of consequentialism are:

i. It is wrong to impute a moral judgment on an act without considering the actor’s intention and circumstances, as well as the outcome of the act,

ii. Moral judgment is a posteriori: one evaluates an action after its performance, not vice versa, as in the case of deontologists, where it is a priori.

iii. Among two evils, one should choose the lesser evil. Also, between two good opinions, one should choose the better option.

It is crucial to distinguish consequentialism from related theories, such as utilitarianism and deontological theories. Thisdistinctionis necessary for a better insight into consequentialism.

Consequentialism and utilitarianism

People may try to equate consequentialism with utilitarianism. Doing so is erroneous. However, the most probable position to adopt is that utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. So, while utilitarianism seeks the good in temporal pleasure and happiness, consequentialism, especially the Thomistic version, seeks good in God’s glory and reign as the ultimate end (Peschke, 1996). This end subsequently forms the essential template for moral evaluation.

Consequentialism and deontological theory

It is critical to note that deontological theory and consequentialism are complementary, not contradictory, as both emphasise absolute ends. While deontology holds that moral absolutes provide the basic template for moral evaluation, consequentialism holds that the ultimate end determines moral evaluation. As a result, both constitute complementary templates for moral evaluation, as one cannot make any moral evaluation without considering the nature of the being involved (deontological dimension) and the ultimate end in view (consequentialism). Peschke (1996) validated the above claim by insisting that the two theories are not mutually exclusive but complementary.

Impact of consequentialism on language

Consequentialism affects language; its use, assessment, and control. Discussing them serially provides the necessary insight into the specifics needed for their clearer understanding.

On language usage

Given that consequentialism underscores outcomes as triggers of action, it unarguably impacts language use by answering questions about what language to use, when, where, and how. It means that language transcends mere expressions, but is a phenomenon propelled by an expected outcome. The implication is that man does not just speak, but speaks to achieve a purpose. This purpose is the consequence of his action, which is the primary objective motivating and directing his speech. Consequently, consequentialism influences language use, presenting expected outcomes as the primary driving force behind every moral evaluation. Hence, for any language usage to merit a proper usage tag, it should align with these outcomes, lest it be considered somewhat out of place and unfitting for the purpose.

The above submissions reflect Austin’s (1962) view that language performs illocutionary acts, such as promising, contracting, negotiating, authorising, and ordering. According to consequentialism, the set of outcomes would be the above-mentioned illocutionary acts. Their accomplishment constitutes the expected outcomes that require a carefully chosen language to achieve.

Likewise, the above consequentialists’ thesis corroborates Searle’s (1995) argument that language fundamentally constitutes institutional reality and justifies its structures, such as money, marriage, governments, and property. The weight of the relationship lies in the fact that the language used to conceptualise these institutional structures is tailored towards achieving the ends of the establishment. So, it is, in a way, consequentialist in orientation, implying that, though its use may have considered other significant factors, the expected outcomes might have played a key role.

Moreover, the argument supports Habermas’ (1984) theory of communicative action, which conceives of language as the basis of social life, rationality, and democracy. The veracity of the above claim rests against the backdrop that Habermas presented language as a means of communication and of creating and achieving shared understanding, legitimacy, acceptability, social integration and cohesion. One immediately conceives consequentialism throughout the process, as the basic ends achievable through the language delineated above subsequently influence language use.

Consequentialism is also decipherable in Frege’s (1892) distinction between sense and reference, in that Frege portrayed how reference to a concept may have constant signification but different sense across languages. So, in this discourse on the influence of consequentialism on language use, despite a concept’s signification, its meaning may differ across its usages due to the expected outcome that informs its application in different contexts.

Likewise, given that context influences the meaning of words, an expected outcome also affects the time, place, and manner of language use. Wittgenstein’s (1953) language game sheds further light on the above submission, underscoring that reality is socially constructed, as “to imagine a language means to imagine a form of life” (P1, 19). So, consequent on its outcome-driven approach, consequentialism shapes the nature of language use, since not all languages yield the same results. To achieve an expected result, certain languages are chosen over others.

On language evaluation

As an ethical framework, consequentialism affects language use assessment, as the outcome determines word choice. Thus, words are judged based on their position on the expected result. Where their use aligns with the predictable outcome, they are judged acceptable; otherwise, they are rejected. It is in tandem with the evaluative implications of language consequent on the resort to consequentialism that inform the categorisation of certain expressions as hate speech and so inconsistent with societal harmony. For example, Waldron (2012) extensively discussed hate speech, describing it as undermining people’s sense of assurance, social standing, and dignity, thereby impeding their confident coexistence in society. So, following consequentialism, which emphasises outcomes as a criterion for the acceptability or non-acceptability of a given outcome, the language used in a given action is judged according to its fidelity to or deviation from the intended result.

Given that the above evaluation is result-focused, there is a tendency to ignore other basic facts about the language use. Such neglect may lead to undue compromise and a forced tilting of words to serve a designated purpose, resulting in linguistic confusion, denigration, and corruption. This language corruption is apparent in contemporary society, where certain words are now coded with meanings that are a sharp departure from their original meanings. At times, they are presented in a way that malforms rather than improves people’s knowledge. At other times, they are portrayed in ways that refine how a word has been used. A typical instance of such expression is the use of the term ‘goat’ to represent the greatest of all time in the football world.

On language regulation

The thirst to achieve a desired objective can also lead to alignment of language with the expected outcome. Hence, consequentialism also plays a role in regulating language use. This role is predicated on the objective at issue. In this case what guides a language use is not the nature of the language, its semantic and syntactic coloration, but rather its amenability to result in view. So, the fulcrum around which language use revolves is the outcome expected throughout the process. So, given its result-oriented nature, consequentialism is one of the theories that promote and sustain language regulation. This is evident in Barendt’s (2019) discourse on Waldron’s (2012) notion of hate speech. In this discourse, Barendt noted ambiguity in Waldron’s view of the nature of hate speech, namely, whether it causes or constitutes harm. Nonetheless, he (Barendt) described Waldron as opting for the former, that hate speech tends to cause harm. Subsequently, Barendt considered it a weak form of the consequentialist argument for proscribing hate speech.

While the above regulation can be productive, there is also the tendency for consequentialism to lead to harmful social phenomena, as the quest for an expected outcome can breed and trigger diverse social ills, such as the unbridled pursuit of wealth, ritual killings, theft, and the like. In the realm of language, the above ills are accompanied by corresponding linguistic corruptions, as evident in the corruption of certain terms to serve economic interests despite their implications for morality. A typical example is the Igbo concept, Igbu ozu (the killing of a corpse), used to describe ascent to the realm of wealth without reference to the morality of the wealth-making involved.

Legally, consequentialism could result in the enactment of rules that threaten people’s fundamental human rights. Of course, the recent anti-hate speech bill, designated as the National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speech Bill, sponsored in 2018 by Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi and reintroduced by him in 2019 in the Senate, or the version sponsored by Mohammed Tahir Monguno in the House of Representatives, were typical instances of such (Tijani, 2019; Ayeni, 2020). Another was the Protection from Internet Falsehood and Manipulation and other Related Offences bill sponsored by Senator Mohammed Sani Musa on November 5, 2019 (“#NotToSocialMediaBill,” 2020; Amnesty International, 2019; Ewang, 2019). These bills were opposed by Nigerians at home and in the diaspora (“#NotToSocialMediaBill,” 2020). The critics alleged that the bills would serve harmful purposes, especially by infringing on people’s fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of speech. In particular, the bill prohibiting hate speech was heavily criticised for proposing a death penalty for core hate speech offenders (Amnesty International, 2019; Santas, 2021). In sum, as the tilt towards the regulations above is outcome-driven, the language deployed in the process would be result-oriented, implying that consequentialism influences language regulation.

Conclusion

Consequentialism, as an ethical framework, stresses outcomes as the basis for acceptance or rejection. Ipso facto, an action is right when it yields an expected result, and it is bad when the contrary is the case. Consequentialism has its strengths and weaknesses. On the positive side, it provides a target and a trigger for action, without which one may lose focus throughout the process. The endpoint of any activity is significant for its realisation, given the embedded force that propels it. Nonetheless, in the adverse domain, consequentialism could engender and precipitate diverse ethical issues, such as an overemphasis on results, often leading to the total neglect of the means used to achieve them. On a serious note, its implications dovetail into the language domain, particularly in language use, evaluation, and regulation. Hence, this paper argues that consequentialism adversely affects language, despite its emphasis on outcomes as incentives for more actions.

From the perspective of language use, consequentialism answers questions about what language to use, when, where, and how. The implication is that it shapes language use, a shaping that could be negative or positive. Nonetheless, in contemporary society, this shaping is mostly negative as it has resulted in many societal ills. Likewise, from the language assessment domain, consequentialism’s emphasis on results provides a reliable litmus test for situational and contextual uses of words. This assessment leads to grouping words into different categories, relying on their association with predictable consequences.

Besides, in the domain of language regulation, consequentialism informs diverse rules governing language control, such as those governing hate speech. Such enactments revolve around making language work towards a set objective, the intrinsic nature of the words used notwithstanding. Subsequently, this paper concluded that consequentialism could hurt language, given its negative impact on language use, evaluation, and regulation.

References

Amnesty International. (2019). Nigeria: Bills on hate speech and social media are dangerous

attacks on freedom of expression. https://amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/12/nigeria-

bills-on-hate-speech-andsocial-media-are-dangerous-attacks-on-freedom-of-expression.

Aristotle. (2009). Nicomachean ethics (W.D Ross, Trans.). In R. McKeon & C.D.C. Reeve (Ed.).

The Basic Works of Aristotle. The Modern Library. (Original work published in ca. 350 B.C.E).

Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.

Ayeni, T. (2020, November 24). Nigeria #EndSARS: Why social media bill threatens death

penalty ‘for hate speech’. https://www.theafricareport.com/51915/nigeria-social-media-bill-threatens-death-penalty-for-hate-speech/.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Barendt, E. (2019). What is the harm of hate speech? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice (22),

539–553 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10002-0.

Bentham, J. (2017). An Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Dover

Publications.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. W. W. Norton & Company

Ewang, A. (2019, November 26). Nigerians should say no to social media bill. Human Rights

Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/26/nigerians-should-say-nosocial-media-bill.

Fletcher, J. (1966). Situation ethics. SCM Press.

Frege, G. (1948). On sense and reference. In P. Geach & M. Black (Eds.), Translations from the

Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege (pp. 56–78). Blackwell. (Original work published in 1892).

Freud, S. (1961). The ego and the id. (J. Strachey, Ed. & Trans). W. W. Norton & Company

(Original work published in 1923).

Gilligan, c. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Havard

University Press.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalisation

of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press.

Kant, I. (2015). Groundwork of the metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor & J. Timmermann, Trans.

& Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1690).

Kohlberg, L.(1981). Essays on moral development: Vol. 1. The philosophy of moral development-

ment. Harper & Row

Macaskill, W. (2022). What we owe the future. Oneworld Publications. https://cepcuyo.com/wp-

content/uploads/2022/10/What-We-Owe-the-Future-William-MacAskill-1.

MacIntyre, A. C. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press.

Mill, J.S. (2009). Utilitarianism. The Floating Press. (Original work published in 1861).

Nnaemedo, B. (2023). A Critical look at tithe and tithing. Fasmen Communication Press.

Peschke, K. H. (1966). Christian ethics: Moral theology in the light of Vatican II. Theological

Publication in India.

Piaget. J.(1932). The moral judgment of the child (M, Gabain, Trans.). Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence (M. Piercy & D. E. Berlyne, Trans.). Routledge

& Kegan Paul.

Plato. (1997). Plato: Complete works (Republic, J. M. Cooper & D. S. Hutchinson, Eds.;

G.MA. Grube, & rev. C.D.C. Reeve, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published in ca. 225 B.C.E). https://hardyhaberland.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Plat

o-john-m.cooper-d.-s.-hutchinson-plato-complete.

Santas, T. (2021). Social media regulation in a democratic Nigeria: Challenges and implications.

MCCPaper, 5(1), 71-88. https://www.researchgate.net.

Searle, J.R. (1995). The construction of social reality. The Free Press.

Singer, P. (2009). Animal liberation: The definitive classic of the animal movement. Ecco, An

Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. (Original work published in 1975).

Singer, P. (2019). The life you can save: How to do your part to end world poverty. Random

House Publishing Group. (Original work published in 2009).

Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behaviour. Macmillan

Tijani, M. (2019, November 25). Death penalty for criticising Nigeria’s government? What we

know about the hate speech bill. AFP Nigeria. https://factcheck.afp.com/death-penalty-criticising-nigerias-government-what-we-know-about-hate-speech-bill.

Waldron, J. (2012). The harm in hate speech. Harvard University Press