Consequentialism

Consequentialism is the family of normative theories holding that the moral rightness of acts (or rules, motives, or institutions) depends solely on the goodness of their consequences.

Definition

A normative theory is consequentialist if it ranks acts by the value of their consequences and holds that an agent ought to perform the act whose outcome is at least as good as that of any available alternative.

Scope

This area covers consequentialist normative theories: views on which the right action is fixed entirely by the value of outcomes, abstracting from the agent's intentions or any deontic constraints. It includes the classical utilitarian tradition, the distinction between act- and rule-consequentialism, questions about how value across persons is aggregated, and the objection that consequentialism is excessively demanding. It does not cover non-consequentialist alternatives (treated under deontology, virtue ethics, and contractualism) except by contrast.

Sub-topics

• act and rule consequentialism
• aggregation and the overall good
• demandingness of consequentialism
• utilitarianism

Core questions

• Is the rightness of an act determined entirely by the goodness of its consequences?
• What makes one outcome better than another, and how is value to be measured and compared?
• Should the unit of moral evaluation be individual acts, rules, or motives?
• How should benefits and harms distributed across different persons be aggregated into an overall ranking?
• Does consequentialism demand too much of moral agents?

Key theories

Classical utilitarianism

The view, associated with Bentham and Mill, that an act is right insofar as it tends to promote the greatest aggregate happiness (pleasure and the absence of pain), counting each person's welfare equally.

Welfarist consequentialism

The position that the only thing with intrinsic value is welfare or well-being, so the good to be maximized is some function of how well individual lives go.

History

Consequentialist ideas appear in ancient hedonism and in Hume, but the systematic theory was articulated by Bentham (1789), who proposed the principle of utility as a felicific calculus, and developed by Mill (1863), who distinguished higher and lower pleasures. Sidgwick (1907) gave the most rigorous classical statement and exposed tensions between egoism and universal benevolence. Twentieth-century work refined the act/rule distinction and, with Parfit (2011), explored convergence among consequentialist, Kantian, and contractualist theories.

Debates

Maximizing vs. satisficing consequentialism

Whether agents are required to bring about the best available outcome, or whether producing a 'good enough' outcome suffices, bears directly on how demanding the theory is.

Integrity and the separateness of persons

Critics argue that by aggregating welfare across persons, consequentialism can require agents to sacrifice their own projects and ignores the moral significance of the boundaries between individuals.

Key figures

• Jeremy Bentham
• John Stuart Mill
• Henry Sidgwick
• Derek Parfit
• Peter Singer
• R. M. Hare

Seminal works

• bentham1789
• mill1863
• sidgwick1907
• parfit2011

Frequently asked questions

Is consequentialism the same as utilitarianism?

No. Utilitarianism is the best-known form of consequentialism, but consequentialism is broader: any theory that evaluates acts solely by their outcomes counts, including views that value things other than welfare.

Does consequentialism ignore intentions?

In assessing whether an act is right, classical consequentialism looks only at outcomes, not intentions. It can, however, evaluate motives separately and praise or blame agents on that basis.