Consequentialism is the class of normative
ethical theories holding that the consequences
of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for
any judgment about the rightness or wrongness
of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist
standpoint, a morally right act (or omission
from acting) is one that will produce a good
outcome, or consequence.
Consequentialism is primarily non-prescriptive,
meaning the moral worth of an action is determined
by its potential consequence, not by whether
it follows a set of written edicts or laws.
One example would entail lying under the threat
of government punishment to save an innocent
person's life, even though it is illegal to
lie under oath.
Consequentialism is usually contrasted with
deontological ethics (or deontology), in that
deontology, in which rules and moral duty
are central, derives the rightness or wrongness
of one's conduct from the character of the
behaviour itself rather than the outcomes
of the conduct. It is also contrasted with
virtue ethics, which focuses on the character
of the agent rather than on the nature or
consequences of the act (or omission) itself,
and pragmatic ethics which treats morality
like science: advancing socially over the
course of many lifetimes, such that any moral
criterion is subject to revision. Consequentialist
theories differ in how they define moral goods.
Some argue that consequentialist and deontological
theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
For example, T. M. Scanlon advances the idea
that human rights, which are commonly considered
a "deontological" concept, can only be justified
with reference to the consequences of having
those rights. Similarly, Robert Nozick argues
for a theory that is mostly consequentialist,
but incorporates inviolable "side-constraints"
which restrict the sort of actions agents
are permitted to do.
== Philosophies ==
=== 
State consequentialism ===
It is the business of the benevolent man to
seek to promote what is beneficial to the
world and to eliminate what is harmful, and
to provide a model for the world. What benefits
he will carry out; what does not benefit men
he will leave alone.
Mohist consequentialism, also known as state
consequentialism, is an ethical theory which
evaluates the moral worth of an action based
on how much it contributes to the welfare
of a state. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, Mohist consequentialism, dating
back to the 5th century BCE, is the "world's
earliest form of consequentialism, a remarkably
sophisticated version based on a plurality
of intrinsic goods taken as constitutive of
human welfare".Unlike utilitarianism, which
views utility as the sole moral good, "the
basic goods in Mohist consequentialist thinking
are... order, material wealth, and increase
in population". During Mozi's era, war and
famines were common, and population growth
was seen as a moral necessity for a harmonious
society. The "material wealth" of Mohist consequentialism
refers to basic needs like shelter and clothing,
and the "order" of Mohist consequentialism
refers to Mozi's stance against warfare and
violence, which he viewed as pointless and
a threat to social stability. Stanford sinologist
David Shepherd Nivison, in The Cambridge History
of Ancient China, writes that the moral goods
of Mohism "are interrelated: more basic wealth,
then more reproduction; more people, then
more production and wealth... if people have
plenty, they would be good, filial, kind,
and so on unproblematically".The Mohists believed
that morality is based on "promoting the benefit
of all under heaven and eliminating harm to
all under heaven". In contrast to Jeremy Bentham's
views, state consequentialism is not utilitarian
because it is not hedonistic or individualistic.
The importance of outcomes that are good for
the community outweigh the importance of individual
pleasure and pain. The term state consequentialism
has also been applied to the political philosophy
of the Confucian philosopher Xunzi.On the
other hand, the "Legalist" Han Fei "is motivated
almost totally from the ruler's point of view".
=== Utilitarianism ===
Nature has placed mankind under the governance
of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.
It is for them alone to point out what we
ought to do, as well as to determine what
we shall do. On the one hand the standard
of right and wrong, on the other the chain
of causes and effects, are fastened to their
throne. They govern us in all we do, in all
we say, in all we think...
In summary, Jeremy Bentham states that people
are driven by their interests and their fears,
but their interests take precedence over their
fears, and their interests are carried out
in accordance with how people view the consequences
that might be involved with their interests.
"Happiness" on this account is defined as
the maximization of pleasure and the minimization
of pain.
Historically, hedonistic utilitarianism is
the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist
moral theory. This form of utilitarianism
holds that what matters is the aggregate happiness;
the happiness of everyone and not the happiness
of any particular person. John Stuart Mill,
in his exposition of hedonistic utilitarianism,
proposed a hierarchy of pleasures, meaning
that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure
is more highly valued than the pursuit of
other pleasures. However, some contemporary
utilitarians, such as Peter Singer, are concerned
with maximizing the satisfaction of preferences,
hence "preference utilitarianism". Other contemporary
forms of utilitarianism mirror the forms of
consequentialism outlined below.
=== Ethical egoism ===
Ethical egoism can be understood as a consequentialist
theory according to which the consequences
for the individual agent are taken to matter
more than any other result. Thus, egoism will
prescribe actions that may be beneficial,
detrimental, or neutral to the welfare of
others. Some, like Henry Sidgwick, argue that
a certain degree of egoism promotes the general
welfare of society for two reasons: because
individuals know how to please themselves
best, and because if everyone were an austere
altruist then general welfare would inevitably
decrease.
=== Ethical altruism ===
Ethical altruism can be seen as a consequentialist
ethic which prescribes that an individual
take actions that have the best consequences
for everyone except for himself. This was
advocated by Auguste Comte, who coined the
term "altruism," and whose ethics can be summed
up in the phrase "Live for others".
=== Rule consequentialism ===
In general, consequentialist theories focus
on actions. However, this need not be the
case. Rule consequentialism is a theory that
is sometimes seen as an attempt to reconcile
deontology and consequentialism—and in some
cases, this is stated as a criticism of rule
consequentialism. Like deontology, rule consequentialism
holds that moral behavior involves following
certain rules. However, rule consequentialism
chooses rules based on the consequences that
the selection of those rules has. Rule consequentialism
exists in the forms of rule utilitarianism
and rule egoism.
Various theorists are split as to whether
the rules are the only determinant of moral
behavior or not. For example, Robert Nozick
holds that a certain set of minimal rules,
which he calls "side-constraints", are necessary
to ensure appropriate actions. There are also
differences as to how absolute these moral
rules are. Thus, while Nozick's side-constraints
are absolute restrictions on behavior, Amartya
Sen proposes a theory that recognizes the
importance of certain rules, but these rules
are not absolute. That is, they may be violated
if strict adherence to the rule would lead
to much more undesirable consequences.
One of the most common objections to rule-consequentialism
is that it is incoherent, because it is based
on the consequentialist principle that what
we should be concerned with is maximizing
the good, but then it tells us not to act
to maximize the good, but to follow rules
(even in cases where we know that breaking
the rule could produce better results).
Brad Hooker avoided this objection by not
basing his form of rule-consequentialism on
the ideal of maximizing the good. He writes:
…the best argument for rule-consequentialism
is not that it derives from an overarching
commitment to maximise the good. The best
argument for rule-consequentialism is that
it does a better job than its rivals of matching
and tying together our moral convictions,
as well as offering us help with our moral
disagreements and uncertainties.
Derek Parfit described Brad Hooker's book
on rule-consequentialism Ideal Code, Real
World as the "best statement and defence,
so far, of one of the most important moral
theories".Rule-consequentialism may offer
a means to reconcile pure consequentialism
with deontological, or rules-based ethics.
=== Two-level consequentialism ===
The two-level approach involves engaging in
critical reasoning and considering all the
possible ramifications of one's actions before
making an ethical decision, but reverting
to generally reliable moral rules when one
is not in a position to stand back and examine
the dilemma as a whole. In practice, this
equates to adhering to rule consequentialism
when one can only reason on an intuitive level,
and to act consequentialism when in a position
to stand back and reason on a more critical
level.This position can be described as a
reconciliation between act consequentialism
– in which the morality of an action is
determined by that action's effects – and
rule consequentialism – in which moral behavior
is derived from following rules that lead
to positive outcomes.The two-level approach
to consequentialism is most often associated
with R. M. Hare and Peter Singer.
=== Motive consequentialism ===
Another consequentialist version is motive
consequentialism which looks at whether the
state of affairs that results from the motive
to choose an action is better or at least
as good as each of the alternative state of
affairs that would have resulted from alternative
actions. This version gives relevance to the
motive of an act and links it to its consequences.
An act can therefore not be wrong if the decision
to act was based on a right motive. A possible
inference is, that one can not be blamed for
mistaken judgments if the motivation was to
do good.
=== Negative consequentialism ===
Most consequentialist theories focus on promoting
some sort of good consequences. However, negative
utilitarianism lays out a consequentialist
theory that focuses solely on minimizing bad
consequences.
One major difference between these two approaches
is the agent's responsibility. Positive consequentialism
demands that we bring about good states of
affairs, whereas negative consequentialism
requires that we avoid bad ones. Stronger
versions of negative consequentialism will
require active intervention to prevent bad
and ameliorate existing harm. In weaker versions,
simple forbearance from acts tending to harm
others is sufficient. An example of this is
the Slippery Slope Argument, which encourages
others to avoid a specified act on the grounds
that it may ultimately lead to undesirable
consequences.Often "negative" consequentialist
theories assert that reducing suffering is
more important than increasing pleasure. Karl
Popper, for example, claimed "…from the
moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed
by pleasure...". (While Popper is not a consequentialist
per se, this is taken as a classic statement
of negative utilitarianism.) When considering
a theory of justice, negative consequentialists
may use a statewide or global-reaching principle:
the reduction of suffering (for the disadvantaged)
is more valuable than increased pleasure (for
the affluent or luxurious).
=== Teleological ethics ===
Teleological ethics (Greek telos, "end"; logos,
"science") is an ethical theory that holds
that the ends or consequences of an act determine
whether an act is good or evil. Teleological
theories are often discussed in opposition
to deontological ethical theories, which hold
that acts themselves are inherently good or
evil, regardless of the consequences of acts.
The saying, "the end justifies the means",
meaning that if a goal is morally important
enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.Teleological
theories differ on the nature of the end that
actions ought to promote. Eudaemonist theories
(Greek eudaimonia, "happiness") hold that
the goal of ethics consists in some function
or activity appropriate to man as a human
being, and thus tend to emphasize the cultivation
of virtue or excellence in the agent as the
end of all action. These could be the classical
virtues—courage, temperance, justice, and
wisdom—that promoted the Greek ideal of
man as the "rational animal", or the theological
virtues—faith, hope, and love—that distinguished
the Christian ideal of man as a being created
in the image of God.
Utilitarian-type theories hold that the end
consists in an experience or feeling produced
by the action. Hedonism, for example, teaches
that this feeling is pleasure—either one's
own, as in egoism (the 17th-century English
philosopher Thomas Hobbes), or everyone's,
as in universalistic hedonism, or utilitarianism
(the 19th-century English philosophers Jeremy
Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Sidgwick),
with its formula of the "greatest pleasure
of the greatest number".Other utilitarian-type
views include the claims that the end of action
is survival and growth, as in evolutionary
ethics (the 19th-century English philosopher
Herbert Spencer); the experience of power,
as in despotism; satisfaction and adjustment,
as in pragmatism (20th-century American philosophers
Ralph Barton Perry and John Dewey); and freedom,
as in existentialism (the 20th-century French
philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre).The chief problem
for eudaemonist theories is to show that leading
a life of virtue will also be attended by
happiness—by the winning of the goods regarded
as the chief end of action. That Job should
suffer and Socrates and Jesus die while the
wicked prosper, then seems unjust. Eudaemonists
generally reply that the universe is moral
and that, in Socrates' words, "No evil can
happen to a good man, either in life or after
death," or, in Jesus' words, "But he who endures
to the end will be saved." (Matt 10:22).
Utilitarian theories, on the other hand, must
answer the charge that ends do not justify
the means. The problem arises in these theories
because they tend to separate the achieved
ends from the action by which these ends were
produced. One implication of utilitarianism
is that one's intention in performing an act
may include all of its foreseen consequences.
The goodness of the intention then reflects
the balance of the good and evil of these
consequences, with no limits imposed upon
it by the nature of the act itself—even
if it be, say, the breaking of a promise or
the execution of an innocent man. Utilitarianism,
in answering this charge, must show either
that what is apparently immoral is not really
so or that, if it really is so, then closer
examination of the consequences will bring
this fact to light. Ideal utilitarianism (G.E.
Moore and Hastings Rashdall) tries to meet
the difficulty by advocating a plurality of
ends and including among them the attainment
of virtue itself, which, as John Stuart Mill
affirmed, "may be felt a good in itself, and
desired as such with as great intensity as
any other good".
=== Acts and omissions, and the "act and omissions
doctrine" ===
Since pure consequentialism holds that an
action is to be judged solely by its result,
most consequentialist theories hold that a
deliberate action is no different from a deliberate
decision not to act. This contrasts with the
"acts and omissions doctrine", which is upheld
by some medical ethicists and some religions:
it asserts there is a significant moral distinction
between acts and deliberate non-actions which
lead to the same outcome. This contrast is
brought out in issues such as voluntary euthanasia.
== Issues ==
=== Action guidance ===
One important characteristic of many normative
moral theories such as consequentialism is
the ability to produce practical moral judgements.
At the very least, any moral theory needs
to define the standpoint from which the goodness
of the consequences are to be determined.
What is primarily at stake here is the responsibility
of the agent.
==== The ideal observer ====
One common tactic among consequentialists,
particularly those committed to an altruistic
(selfless) account of consequentialism, is
to employ an ideal, neutral observer from
which moral judgements can be made. John Rawls,
a critic of utilitarianism, argues that utilitarianism,
in common with other forms of consequentialism,
relies on the perspective of such an ideal
observer. The particular characteristics of
this ideal observer can vary from an omniscient
observer, who would grasp all the consequences
of any action, to an ideally informed observer,
who knows as much as could reasonably be expected,
but not necessarily all the circumstances
or all the possible consequences. Consequentialist
theories that adopt this paradigm hold that
right action is the action that will bring
about the best consequences from this ideal
observer's perspective.
==== The real observer ====
In practice, it is very difficult, and at
times arguably impossible, to adopt the point
of view of an ideal observer. Individual moral
agents do not know everything about their
particular situations, and thus do not know
all the possible consequences of their potential
actions. For this reason, some theorists have
argued that consequentialist theories can
only require agents to choose the best action
in line with what they know about the situation.
However, if this approach is naïvely adopted,
then moral agents who, for example, recklessly
fail to reflect on their situation, and act
in a way that brings about terrible results,
could be said to be acting in a morally justifiable
way. Acting in a situation without first informing
oneself of the circumstances of the situation
can lead to even the most well-intended actions
yielding miserable consequences. As a result,
it could be argued that there is a moral imperative
for an agent to inform himself as much as
possible about a situation before judging
the appropriate course of action. This imperative,
of course, is derived from consequential thinking:
a better-informed agent is able to bring about
better consequences.
=== Consequences for whom ===
Moral action always has consequences for certain
people or things. Varieties of consequentialism
can be differentiated by the beneficiary of
the good consequences. That is, one might
ask "Consequences for whom?"
==== Agent-focused or agent-neutral ====
A fundamental distinction can be drawn between
theories which require that agents act for
ends perhaps disconnected from their own interests
and drives, and theories which permit that
agents act for ends in which they have some
personal interest or motivation. These are
called "agent-neutral" and "agent-focused"
theories respectively.
Agent-neutral consequentialism ignores the
specific value a state of affairs has for
any particular agent. Thus, in an agent-neutral
theory, an actor's personal goals do not count
any more than anyone else's goals in evaluating
what action the actor should take. Agent-focused
consequentialism, on the other hand, focuses
on the particular needs of the moral agent.
Thus, in an agent-focused account, such as
one that Peter Railton outlines, the agent
might be concerned with the general welfare,
but the agent is more concerned with the immediate
welfare of herself and her friends and family.These
two approaches could be reconciled by acknowledging
the tension between an agent's interests as
an individual and as a member of various groups,
and seeking to somehow optimize among all
of these interests. For example, it may be
meaningful to speak of an action as being
good for someone as an individual, but bad
for them as a citizen of their town.
==== Human-centered? ====
Many consequentialist theories may seem primarily
concerned with human beings and their relationships
with other human beings. However, some philosophers
argue that we should not limit our ethical
consideration to the interests of human beings
alone. Jeremy Bentham, who is regarded as
the founder of utilitarianism, argues that
animals can experience pleasure and pain,
thus demanding that 'non-human animals' should
be a serious object of moral concern. More
recently, Peter Singer has argued that it
is unreasonable that we do not give equal
consideration to the interests of animals
as to those of human beings when we choose
the way we are to treat them. Such equal consideration
does not necessarily imply identical treatment
of humans and non-humans, any more than it
necessarily implies identical treatment of
all humans.
=== Value of consequences ===
One way to divide various consequentialisms
is by the types of consequences that are taken
to matter most, that is, which consequences
count as good states of affairs. According
to utilitarianism, a good action is one that
results in an increase in pleasure, and the
best action is one that results in the most
pleasure for the greatest number. Closely
related is eudaimonic consequentialism, according
to which a full, flourishing life, which may
or may not be the same as enjoying a great
deal of pleasure, is the ultimate aim. Similarly,
one might adopt an aesthetic consequentialism,
in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty.
However, one might fix on non-psychological
goods as the relevant effect. Thus, one might
pursue an increase in material equality or
political liberty instead of something like
the more ephemeral "pleasure". Other theories
adopt a package of several goods, all to be
promoted equally.
=== Virtue ethics ===
Consequentialism can also be contrasted with
aretaic moral theories such as virtue ethics.
Whereas consequentialist theories posit that
consequences of action should be the primary
focus of our thinking about ethics, virtue
ethics insists that it is the character rather
than the consequences of actions that should
be the focal point. Some virtue ethicists
hold that consequentialist theories totally
disregard the development and importance of
moral character. For example, Philippa Foot
argues that consequences in themselves have
no ethical content, unless it has been provided
by a virtue such as benevolence.However, consequentialism
and virtue ethics need not be entirely antagonistic.
Iain King has developed an approach that reconciles
the two schools. Other consequentialists consider
effects on the character of people involved
in an action when assessing consequence. Similarly,
a consequentialist theory may aim at the maximization
of a particular virtue or set of virtues.
Finally, following Foot's lead, one might
adopt a sort of consequentialism that argues
that virtuous activity ultimately produces
the best consequences.
=== Ultimate end ===
The ultimate end is a concept in the moral
philosophy of Max Weber, in which individuals
act in a faithful, rather than rational, manner.
We must be clear about the fact that all ethically
oriented conduct may be guided by one of two
fundamentally differing and irreconcilably
opposed maxims: conduct can be oriented to
an "ethic of ultimate ends" or to an "ethic
of responsibility." This is not to say that
an ethic of ultimate ends is identical with
irresponsibility, or that an ethic of responsibility
is identical with unprincipled opportunism.
Naturally, nobody says that. However, there
is an abysmal contrast between conduct that
follows the maxim of an ethic of ultimate
ends—that, is in religious terms, "the Christian
does rightly and leaves the results with the
Lord"—and conduct that follows the maxim
of an ethic of responsibility, in which case
one has to give an account of the foreseeable
results of one's action.
== Etymology ==
The term "consequentialism" was coined by
G. E. M. Anscombe in her essay "Modern Moral
Philosophy" in 1958, to describe what she
saw as the central error of certain moral
theories, such as those propounded by Mill
and Sidgwick.The phrase and concept of "The
end justifies the means" are at least as old
as the first century BC. Ovid wrote in his
Heroides that Exitus acta probat "The result
justifies the deed".
== Criticisms ==
G. E. M. Anscombe objects to consequentialism
on the grounds that it does not provide ethical
guidance in what one ought to do because there
is no distinction between consequences that
are foreseen and those that are intended.Bernard
Williams has argued that consequentialism
is alienating because it requires moral agents
to put too much distance between themselves
and their own projects and commitments. Williams
argues that consequentialism requires moral
agents to take a strictly impersonal view
of all actions, since it is only the consequences,
and not who produces them, that are said to
matter. Williams argues that this demands
too much of moral agents—since (he claims)
consequentialism demands that they be willing
to sacrifice any and all personal projects
and commitments in any given circumstance
in order to pursue the most beneficent course
of action possible. He argues further that
consequentialism fails to make sense of intuitions
that it can matter whether or not someone
is personally the author of a particular consequence.
For example, that participating in a crime
can matter, even if the crime would have been
committed anyway, or would even have been
worse, without the agent's participation.Some
consequentialists—most notably Peter Railton—have
attempted to develop a form of consequentialism
that acknowledges and avoids the objections
raised by Williams. Railton argues that Williams's
criticisms can be avoided by adopting a form
of consequentialism in which moral decisions
are to be determined by the sort of life that
they express. On his account, the agent should
choose the sort of life that will, on the
whole, produce the best overall effects.
== Notable consequentialists ==
== 
See also
