Consequentialism

Consequentialism is a major class of normative ethical theory within moral philosophy. It holds that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action (including omissions) depends solely on its consequences. From a consequentialist standpoint, an act is morally right if it produces, is likely to produce, or is intended to produce the greatest balance of good over bad when compared with any available alternative. Consequentialism, together with eudaimonism, forms part of the broader family of teleological ethics, which evaluates actions according to the ends or intrinsic goods they bring about.

Core Principles and Conceptual Background

Consequentialism begins with the assumption that morally significant actions are those that affect states of affairs. The value of those states—defined by a given value theory—determines moral evaluation. Competing theories define “good” in different ways, including:

• Hedonism, which identifies good with pleasure and the absence of pain.
• Preference satisfaction, where the fulfilment of rational preferences is the primary good.
• Common good frameworks, which emphasise welfare at a community or societal level.

Consequentialism stands in contrast to deontological ethics, which grounds morality in duties, principles or the inherent nature of actions rather than their consequences. It also differs from virtue ethics, which focuses on the character traits of moral agents, and from pragmatic ethics, which treats moral understanding as evolving through social development.
Despite these contrasts, consequentialism and deontological theories are not always mutually exclusive. Some philosophers argue that deontological rights or duties may be justified by their consequences. For instance, T. M. Scanlon has suggested that human rights, though deontological in structure, are supported by the consequences of their recognition. Robert Nozick proposed a theory that is largely consequentialist but incorporates absolute “side-constraints” restricting permissible actions. Derek Parfit later argued that, when properly interpreted, rule consequentialism, Kantian ethics and contractualism converge on similar prescriptions.

Etymology and Development of the Term

The term consequentialism was introduced by G. E. M. Anscombe in her 1958 essay Modern Moral Philosophy. She applied the term differently from contemporary usage, at times classifying figures such as W. D. Ross and J. S. Mill in ways that would later be reversed. This shift reflects changes in the meaning of the term rather than reinterpretations of the theorists’ own views.
Consequentialism is often grouped—together with virtue ethics—under the wider category of teleological theories, drawn from the Greek telos (“end” or “purpose”) and logos (“study”). Teleological ethics share the fundamental idea that moral value lies in the promotion of intrinsic goods. This is sometimes summarised by the aphorism “the end justifies the means”, though consequentialist theories typically provide a far more nuanced account of moral reasoning than this phrase implies.

Major Forms of Consequentialism

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is the most influential and historically prominent form of consequentialism. It asserts that actions should be judged by their contribution to overall happiness or utility. Classical utilitarianism, developed by thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, is hedonistic: good is defined in terms of maximising pleasure and minimising pain. Bentham famously argued that human behaviour is driven by interest and that moral evaluation follows from calculations of future pleasure and pain.
Mill introduced a distinction between higher and lower pleasures, maintaining that some forms of happiness are more valuable than others. Contemporary utilitarians such as Peter Singer often prefer preference utilitarianism, which evaluates actions by the extent to which they fulfil rational preferences rather than their capacity to generate pleasure.
Some philosophical discussions note that the ethical significance of pleasure or pain presupposes the existence of phenomenal consciousness, indicating that moral evaluation connects with questions of sentience, qualia and the capacity for suffering.

Rule Consequentialism

While classical consequentialism evaluates individual actions, rule consequentialism focuses on the consequences of adopting certain rules. Under this approach, an act is morally right if it conforms to rules whose acceptance would have the best consequences.
Rule consequentialism attempts, in part, to bridge the gap between consequentialist and deontological moral reasoning. It exists in variations such as rule utilitarianism and rule egoism. Philosophers disagree on the rigidity of such rules: Nozick’s side-constraints function as absolute prohibitions, whereas Amartya Sen has proposed more flexible rules that may be overridden in extreme circumstances.
Critics argue that rule consequentialism can appear inconsistent: if consequences are morally decisive, why follow rules when breaking them may yield better results? Brad Hooker’s influential defence responds that the best justification for rule consequentialism is not maximising good directly but achieving coherence with moral convictions and providing guidance in complex situations.

State Consequentialism

State consequentialism, or Mohist consequentialism, originates in the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Mozi in the fifth century BCE and is considered the earliest developed form of consequentialism. It evaluates moral actions by their contribution to the welfare of the state and society.
Unlike utilitarianism’s singular focus on utility, Mohist thought identifies several intrinsic goods:

• Social order, emphasising peace and opposition to warfare.
• Material well-being, including basic needs such as housing, clothing and food.
• Population growth, seen as necessary for social recovery in times of war and famine.

Sinologists note that these goods are interrelated: material wealth supports population growth, which in turn reinforces social order and stability. Mohist consequentialism is thus a sophisticated, pluralistic form of teleological ethics.

Classification within Ethical Theory

Consequentialism forms one major branch of teleological moral theory. It contrasts with ethical systems where actions carry inherent moral weight or where the agent’s moral character is primary. Consequentialist frameworks, however, remain influential in applied ethics, political philosophy, public policy and decision theory.