Consequentialism
Consequentialism is a moral theory that judges actions solely by their outcomes. Whether an action is right or wrong depends entirely on the results it produces, not on the intentions or motives behind it. This makes it one of the most straightforward frameworks in normative ethics, but also one of the most debated.
Core Principles of Consequentialism
The central claim is simple: the morally right action is whichever one produces the best overall consequences. That means maximizing good outcomes (benefits) and minimizing bad ones (harms).
- Rightness or wrongness is determined by results, not by the character of the person acting or the rules they follow
- If lying to protect someone's feelings leads to a better outcome than telling the truth, a consequentialist would say the lie is morally right
- Different versions of consequentialism disagree about what counts as a "good" consequence. Some focus on happiness, others on pleasure, others on well-being more broadly
This outcome-only focus is what separates consequentialism from other moral theories. A deontologist might say lying is always wrong regardless of outcome. A consequentialist says you have to look at what actually happens.
Mohist vs. Utilitarian Consequentialism
Two major forms of consequentialism come from very different philosophical traditions.
Mohist consequentialism originates from the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Mozi (roughly 5th century BCE). Its defining feature is impartial caring: you should promote the welfare of all people equally, whether they're your family, your friends, or complete strangers. No one's interests count more than anyone else's.
Utilitarianism, developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 18th and 19th centuries, focuses on maximizing overall utility, which is typically understood as happiness, pleasure, or preference satisfaction. The classic formulation is that the right action produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
Both theories evaluate actions by their outcomes and both insist on impartiality. The difference is mainly one of emphasis:
- Mohism stresses equal concern for every individual
- Utilitarianism stresses the aggregate total of well-being across all affected people
In practice, these often point in the same direction, but they frame the moral question differently.
Application of Utilitarian Calculus
Utilitarian calculus is the decision-making procedure utilitarians use to figure out which action is morally right. It involves weighing the expected benefits and harms of each option. Bentham identified several factors to consider: the intensity, duration, certainty, and extent (how many people are affected) of the consequences.
Here's how to apply it to an ethical dilemma:
- Identify all available courses of action
- For each option, consider the potential positive and negative consequences
- Assess those consequences based on intensity, duration, certainty, and extent
- Calculate the overall utility of each action by weighing total positive value against total negative value
- Choose the action that produces the greatest overall utility
Within utilitarianism, there are two important variants that apply this calculus differently:
Act utilitarianism evaluates each specific situation on its own. The right action is whatever produces the greatest utility in that particular case. For example, lying in a specific instance might be justified if it leads to better consequences than telling the truth.
Rule utilitarianism asks a different question: what rule, if everyone followed it, would produce the greatest overall utility? Instead of evaluating individual actions, you evaluate general rules. A rule utilitarian might conclude that a general rule against lying produces better outcomes in the long run, even if a specific lie would help in one case.
These two approaches can lead to different conclusions about the same situation. Act utilitarianism might justify a particular lie, while rule utilitarianism would prohibit it because a universal practice of lying would cause widespread harm.
Alternative Consequentialist Approaches
Not all outcome-based theories look like utilitarianism. A few related positions are worth knowing, especially to understand where consequentialism sits in the broader landscape:
- Ethical egoism holds that the morally right action is the one that maximizes the agent's own self-interest. Unlike utilitarianism, it doesn't require you to weigh everyone's well-being equally.
- Moral absolutism stands in direct contrast to consequentialism. It holds that certain actions (like torture or murder) are always wrong, no matter how good the consequences might be. This is a useful comparison point for understanding what consequentialists are rejecting.
Note: Prima facie duties, associated with W.D. Ross, are not actually a form of consequentialism. Ross argued that we have multiple moral obligations (like keeping promises, not harming others, and showing gratitude) that hold unless overridden by a stronger duty in a specific situation. While consequences can play a role in deciding which duty takes priority, the framework itself is rooted in the duties, not in outcomes alone. It's better understood as a pluralistic alternative to both consequentialism and strict rule-based ethics.