Nonconsequentialism

Nonconsequentialism is a family of moral theories that hold that the rightness or wrongness of an action is not determined solely by its consequences. In nonconsequentialist ethics, factors such as duties, rights, rules, or the agent’s character may ground moral judgment independently of the outcome. By contrast, consequentialist theories assess actions primarily by their results, often focusing on overall welfare or happiness.

Most nonconsequentialist accounts emphasize that there are obligations that agents owe to others, or constraints on permissible actions, that do not reduce to producing good outcomes. Deontological ethics, especially Kantian ethics, argues that actions are right if they are performed from rational duty according to universal maxims, such as treating persons as ends in themselves. Other nonconsequentialists, like W. D. Ross, propose plural duties (fidelity, reparation, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, nonmaleficence) that may conflict, requiring prima facie rankings rather than simple calculations.

Rights-based theories ground morality in the protection of individual rights, while virtue ethics emphasizes character and motives over results. Some nonconsequentialists acknowledge partial attention to consequences but insist that they do not determine the overall moral status of an act.

Critics argue nonconsequentialism can be inflexible or lead to rigid duties in cases where outcomes would clearly benefit people. Others suggest that it is difficult to resolve conflicts between duties without some role for consequences. Contemporary debates often explore hybrid theories that incorporate elements of both nonconsequentialist and consequentialist reasoning, as well as attempts to clarify duties in complex moral contexts.