Café Philo Bristol and Bath

Intent or outcome: what matters more?

Mon, Feb 16 · 7:00 PM GMT

The Llandoger Trow, Llandoger Row, Kings Street, BS1 4ER, Bristol, GB

Note: Café Philo is a way of meeting interesting, inquiring people who enjoy talking about life's big issues and conundrums in a convivial atmosphere, rather than a heavy-duty philosophy seminar. Read more about our approach here.

This question sits at the heart of two big moral approaches: consequentialism (focus on results) and deontology (focus on duties, rules, and intentions). We will explore why people divide on this and what each side finds compelling

Intention vs. outcome
One way of thinking about morality says what really counts is why you act: the principles you follow, the duties you respect, and the kind of will you express. Another way says what ultimately matters is what actually happens in the world — who ends up better or worse off.
This leads to familiar puzzles:

• If someone means well but causes harm, how should we judge them?
• If someone does something cold-blooded but helpful, is that morally good?
• Are some actions always off-limits, no matter the benefits?
• The role of luck: e.g., two drivers use their mobiles while driving: one has an accident and kills a pedestrian; the other arrives home without incident. Is the former more morally culpable than the latter? If so, why?

## Consequentialism (outcome-focused)

Consequentialists say the right action is the one that produces the best overall outcome for everyone affected.
Why people like it:

• It offers a single clear test: compare outcomes and pick the option with the best balance of good over bad (less suffering, more happiness, better well-being).
• It’s impartial: my well-being doesn’t matter more just because it’s mine. This gives us reasons to care about strangers, future generations, and even animals.
• It helps in hard cases: triage decisions, disaster planning, or situations where all options are bad. It gives a structured way to minimise harm.

Why people worry about it:

• It seems demanding: if you must always maximise the good, there’s little room for personal projects or special concern for friends and family.
• It can seem to justify injustice, like harming one person to help many.
• We’re bad at predicting outcomes, which makes morality feel unstable or too reliant on guesswork.

## Deontology (duty/intent-focused)

Deontologists think some actions are right or wrong because of the principles behind them — not just because of what happens afterward.

Why people like it:

• It protects strong rights: you must not kill, coerce, deceive, or use people merely as a tool.
• It emphasises respect for persons: morality is about how we treat others as agents with dignity.
• It avoids making blameworthiness depend on luck: two people with the same intentions shouldn’t be judged differently just because one got unlucky.
• Clear rules and duties fit everyday moral thinking and don’t require endless calculation.

Why people worry about it:

• It can feel rigid: “never lie” sounds strange when a lie might save a life.
• Duties can conflict, and resolving conflicts often sneaks in consequentialist reasoning anyway.
• It sometimes seems to ignore outcomes too much, especially when consequences are huge.

## Thought experiment: the trolley problem

In this classic and familiar case, a runaway trolley will plough into and kill five people working; you can divert it to a siding, but unfortunately this will result in one person’s death. Most people say they would pull the lever, suggesting they hold a consequentialist moral postion. Do you agree?

Another thought experiment: organ harvesting
A healthy person comes in for a routine check-up. Five patients in the clinic need different organs and will die soon. A surgeon could secretly kill the healthy visitor and save all five. The numbers are the same as in the trolley problem (kill one to save five). Consequentialists might therefore say one death instead of five looks like the better outcome; while the deontological view would be that intentionally killing an innocent person for others’ benefit is simply wrong — it violates their rights and treats them as a means.

Questions to ponder:

• Would anything justify the surgeon killing the healthy person?
• Why is it different from pulling the lever in the trolley case?
• Do your intuitions change if the numbers change? Say 20 people? 100

How does this example differ, if at all, from the following situations:

• triage in an over-whelmed field hospital, where the older and most seriously injured are left untreated in favour of younger and more easily treatable?
• a wartime decision to take action that could save thousands but will likely kill at least some civilians?
• the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, leading to the earlier end of World War II?

## Further resources

How Does Consequentialism Differ From Deontology? (3m video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgaUd7yymsM)
Intentions vs. Consequences: What Truly Matters? (16m video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjnzSwahF3g)
Moral Luck https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/05/08/moral-luck/
Trolley problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Education: What is the point?

Wed, Mar 4 · 7:30 PM GMT

Westbury on Trym, GB

Note: Café Philo is a way of meeting interesting, inquiring people who enjoy talking about life's big issues and conundrums in a convivial atmosphere, rather than a heavy-duty philosophy seminar. Read more about our approach here.

Twenty years ago, you may have wanted your child to learn Mandarin. Ten years ago, you probably wanted them to learn how to code. Now, with the advent of AI, you might find yourself asking: what is the point of teaching them anything at all?
Since the Industrial Revolution, schools have been viewed as “factories” for social cohesion and skills transfer–designed to fashion young, productive workers. But the landscape has shifted. Just as the arrival of the car made the skill of shoeing horses obsolete, AI threatens to render much of our traditional curriculum redundant. Yet, much like the invention of movies created entirely new creative industries, technology also opens doors we can’t yet see.
In the UK, we face a specific paradox: we have high academic performance and push 50% of youth toward university, yet we suffer from stubbornly low workplace productivity and a critical shortage of technical skills. Are we training students for a world that no longer exists?
What is the role of education in the 21st century? Is it to enshrine core values? If so, why do we pay so little attention to practical ethics, or indeed practical life skills like tax law and personal finance? Or is the “school of life” something that belongs outside the classroom?

Questions for Discussion

• Obsolete Knowledge: If an AI can recall facts and solve equations instantly, does a human still need to learn them?
• The Factory Model: Are schools still training factory workers for a world without factories?
• The UK Paradox: Why do we have so many university graduates but so few technical skills compared to our European neighbours?
• Breadth vs. Depth: Should a coder be forced to read Keats? Should a poet be forced to learn Python?
• Life Skills: Why can most 18-year-olds solve a quadratic equation but not file their own taxes?
• Social Cohesion: Should schools integrate us into one culture, or do religious and cultural groups have a right to educate their children separately?
• The Future: If AI takes the “thinking” jobs, should education shift purely to leisure, philosophy, and art?

Recommended Reading & Viewing

• Article: Teach Computer Science to Humanities – A short read on the debate between specialized vs. rounded education.
• Video (11 mins): Ken Robinson: Changing Education Paradigms – The classic animation on why our “factory model” system is failing.
• Article: What explains the UK’s productivity problem? – An analysis by The Productivity Institute on why the UK lags behind the US, France, and Germany.
• Video (15 mins): How AI Could Save (Not Destroy) Education | Sal Khan | TED – A counter-argument suggesting AI might personalize, rather than end, education.

At the end of the day, how might we apply this?
If we accept that the “factory model” is dead, how do we treat our own ongoing education? Do we learn for utility, or for the sheer joy of being human?