Editing Consequentialism (section)

{{Short description|Ethical theory based on consequences}}
{{Philosophy sidebar}}

In [[moral philosophy]], '''consequentialism''' is a class of [[normative ethics|normative]], [[Teleology|teleological]] ethical theories that holds that the [[wikt:consequence|consequences]] of one's [[Action (philosophy)|conduct]] are the ultimate basis for judgement about the [[Morality|rightness or wrongness]] of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (including omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome. Consequentialism, along with [[eudaimonism]], falls under the broader category of '''teleological ethics''', a group of views which claim that the moral value of any act consists in its tendency to produce things of [[Intrinsic value (ethics)|intrinsic value]].<ref name=":0">"[https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/teleological-ethics Teleological Ethics]." ''[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]''. via ''[[Encyclopedia.com]].'' 28 May 2020. Retrieved 2 July 2020.</ref> Consequentialists hold in general that an act is right ''[[if and only if]]'' the act (or in some views, the rule under which it falls) will produce, will probably produce, or is intended to produce, a greater balance of good over evil than any available alternative. Different consequentialist theories differ in how they define [[Value theory|moral goods]], with chief candidates including [[Hedonism|pleasure]], the [[Aponia|absence of pain]], the satisfaction of one's [[Preference utilitarianism|preferences]], and broader notions of the "[[Common good|general good]]".

Consequentialism is usually contrasted with [[deontological ethics]] (or deontology): deontology, in which rules and moral duty are central, derives the rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the character of the behaviour itself, rather than the outcomes of the conduct. It is also contrasted with both [[virtue ethics]], which focuses on the character of the [[Agency (philosophy)|agent]] rather than on the nature or consequences of the act (or omission) itself, and [[pragmatic ethics]], which treats morality like [[science]]: advancing collectively as a society over the course of many lifetimes, such that any moral criterion is subject to revision.

Some argue that consequentialist theories (such as [[utilitarianism]]) and deontological theories (such as [[Kantian ethics]]) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, [[T. M. Scanlon]] advances the idea that [[human rights]], which are commonly considered a "deontological" concept, can only be justified with reference to the consequences of having those rights.<ref name="Scheffler"/> Similarly, [[Robert Nozick]] argued for a theory that is mostly consequentialist, but incorporates inviolable "side-constraints" which restrict the sort of actions agents are permitted to do.<ref name="Scheffler"/> [[Derek Parfit]] argued that, in practice, when understood properly, rule consequentialism, Kantian deontology, and [[contractualism]] would all end up prescribing the same behavior.<ref>Parfit, Derek. 2011. ''On What Matters''. Oxford: Oxford University Press</ref>