Consequentialism

Consequentialism is a family of normative ethical theories that judge the rightness or wrongness of actions by their outcomes. The central claim is that, among the available actions, the morally correct one is that which produces the best overall consequences. What counts as "best" depends on the version of consequentialism; most common is to equate the good with well-being, happiness, or preference satisfaction, but some theories allow other goods.

The best-known form is utilitarianism, which typically holds that actions are right if they maximize overall happiness or welfare, taking into account all affected beings. Variants include act utilitarianism, which assesses individual actions, and rule utilitarianism, which assesses the consequences of following general rules. Preference utilitarianism asks whether actions maximize the satisfaction of preferences, rather than happiness.

Historically, consequentialism emerged in the work of philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 18th and 19th centuries. It has since evolved to address issues like justice, rights, and moral psychology, leading to refined forms such as rule theories and non-welicit-centric versions.

Key issues include how to measure and compare consequences, how to predict outcomes, and how to handle uncertainty. Critics point to potential conflicts with rights and justice, the difficulty of predicting effects, the risk of demanding excessive sacrifices, and possible toleration of morally troubling acts if they yield better overall results. Proponents argue that impartial aggregation of welfare provides a robust, simple standard for ethics and aligns moral decision-making with the goal of reducing suffering and increasing welfare, regardless of whose interests are affected.

See also: deontology; virtue ethics; ethical theories; utility.