Other meanings of Consequentialism
Moral philosophy
Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges actions by their consequences. An action is right, on the standard formulation, when it produces consequences at least as good as those of the available alternatives. The theory therefore evaluates conduct by an outcome-ranking rather than by intention, convention, or intrinsic rules. Utilitarianism is the best-known form, but consequentialist theories may value equality, justice, autonomy, friendship, ecological integrity, or the avoidance of suffering. Consequentialism is a theory about the basis of rightness; it does not by itself specify which consequences are valuable or how they should be measured.
Consequentialism makes the value of outcomes central to moral evaluation. Its basic principle compares each possible action with its alternatives and permits, requires, or forbids it according to the ranking of their consequences.1 Consequences can include effects on happiness, suffering, preference satisfaction, rights, relationships, or other goods, depending on the theory.
The modern tradition grew out of earlier discussions of the principle of utility, especially in the work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham emphasized pleasure and pain, while Mill distinguished higher and lower pleasures. Henry Sidgwick later developed a systematic account of impartial practical reasoning and helped shape the philosophical form of modern utilitarianism.2
Consequentialism is impartial in its standard form: an equal benefit or harm counts equally regardless of whose welfare is affected. Some versions, however, give special weight to equality, priority for the worse off, or the preservation of particular values.
The main forms of consequentialism differ over what is assessed and how value is assigned. Act consequentialism evaluates each individual act by its expected or actual outcome. Rule consequentialism evaluates acts through rules whose general acceptance would have the best consequences, such as rules protecting promises or prohibiting torture. Scalar consequentialism ranks actions as better or worse without treating every suboptimal action as strictly wrong.
Utilitarianism identifies value primarily with aggregate welfare, but consequentialism is broader than utilitarianism.2 A consequentialist may defend egalitarian distribution, environmental preservation, or the reduction of extreme suffering without reducing all value to pleasure.
By contrast, deontological ethics holds that some actions can be wrong even when they would improve outcomes, while virtue ethics places character and practical wisdom at the center of evaluation.34 These theories can nevertheless agree about many ordinary judgments.
Consequentialism is attractive because it offers a common rationale for preventing harm and improving lives. It can explain why impartial aid, public-health measures, and institutional reform matter, and it avoids treating existing customs as morally decisive. Contemporary applications include effective altruism, which uses evidence and comparative impact to guide charitable action, although that movement contains several ethical approaches rather than one doctrine.5
Critics argue that unrestricted outcome-maximization can permit actions commonly regarded as intrinsically wrong, including deception, coercion, or punishing an innocent person when doing so would produce better results. The theory can also appear excessively demanding: if one can always produce slightly more good, ordinary spending and personal projects may seem morally suspect.
Other problems concern prediction, measurement, distribution, and the possibility that aggregate gains could outweigh severe losses to a minority. Consequentialists respond with rule-based constraints, uncertainty-sensitive decision procedures, or theories that assign independent value to justice and rights.
Less familiar versions show that consequentialism is not limited to simple pleasure arithmetic. Negative consequentialism gives priority to reducing suffering rather than maximizing a balance of benefits; satisficing versions require a good-enough outcome rather than the very best one; and prioritarian theories give greater moral weight to benefits received by people who are worse off.
Consequentialist reasoning also distinguishes actual from expected consequences. In uncertain circumstances, an act may be justified by the best available evidence even if the result turns out badly. This creates a difficult relationship between moral assessment and moral luck. Some theories assess decision quality by expected value, while others judge the realized outcome.
A further edge case concerns demandingness. Consequentialists have proposed thresholds, agent-relative values, personal prerogatives, and institutional rules to preserve room for family commitments and projects. These modifications reveal an ongoing debate over whether the theory’s impartiality is a strength, a burden, or both.1
Consequentialist theories differ substantially over which consequences matter, how they are compared, and whether the best outcome is always morally required.
Help improve the encyclopedia. Reports go straight to the site manager.