
Ethics Explainer: Consequentialism
ArticleBig Thinkers + Explainers
BY The Ethics Centre 15 FEB 2016
Consequentialism is a theory that says whether something is good or bad depends on its outcomes.
An action that brings about more benefit than harm is good, while an action that causes more harm than benefit is not. The most famous version of this theory is utilitarianism.
Although there are references to this idea in the works of ancient philosopher Epicurus, it’s closely associated with English philosopher Jeremy Bentham.
Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism focussed on which actions were most likely to make people happy. If happiness was the experience of pleasure without pain, the most ethical actions were ones that caused the most possible happiness and the least possible pain.
He even developed a calculator to work out which actions were better or worse – the ‘felicific calculus’. Because it counted every person’s pleasure or pain as the same, regardless of age, wealth, race, etc. utilitarianism could be seen as a radically egalitarian philosophy.
Bentham’s views are most closely aligned with act utilitarianism. This basic form of consequentialism holds an action as ethical if and only if it produces more beneficial/pleasure-causing outcomes than negative/pain-causing ones. Whenever we are faced with a decision, an act consequentialist will expect us to ask that question.
John Stuart Mill, a student of Bentham’s, disagreed. He believed it was too difficult for a society to run if it had to consider the specific costs/benefits of every single action. How could we have speeding laws, for example, if it would sometimes be ethical to break the speed limit?
Instead, Mill believed we should figure out which set of rules would create the most happiness over an extended period of time and then apply those in every situation. This was his theory of rule utilitarianism.
According to this theory, it would be unethical for you to speed on an empty street at two o’clock in the morning. Even if nobody would be hurt, our speeding laws mean less people are harmed overall. Keeping to those rules ensures that.
Consequentialism is an attractive ethical approach because it provides clear and practical guidance – at least in situations where outcomes are easy to predict. The theory is also impartial. By asking us to maximise benefit for the largest number of people (or, for Peter Singer and other preference utilitarians, creatures who have preferences), we set aside our personal biases and self-interest to benefit others.
One problem with the theory is that it can be hard to measure different benefits to decide which one is morally preferable. Is it better to give my money to charity or spend it studying medicine so I can save lives? Many forms of consequentialism have been proposed that attempt to deal with the issue of comparing moral value.
The other concern people express is the tendency of consequentialism to use ‘ends justify the means’ logic. If all we are concerned with is getting good outcomes, this can seem to justify harming some people in order to benefit others. Is it ethical to allow some people to suffer so more people can live well?
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
MOST POPULAR
ArticleLifestyle + Health
Vaccines: compulsory or conditional?
ArticleLaw + Human Rights
He said, she said: Investigating the Christian Porter Case
ArticleBeing Human
Free speech has failed us
ArticleBig Thinkers + Explainers
Ethics Explainer: Ethics, morality & law

BY The Ethics Centre
The Ethics Centre is a not-for-profit organisation developing innovative programs, services and experiences, designed to bring ethics to the centre of professional and personal life.
1 Comment
No one desires the strife of war in life, but it is sometimes necessary and morally justified to engage in war. Let us take the example of a minority being oppressed in a country. Sooner or later, after all diplomatic and political channels are exhausted to reach a solution, they begin to take up arms against the oppressor. The oppressor, obviously, retaliates with ever more repressive measures to crush the minority by force. The oppressors force is relentless to crush the minority rebellion, and the repressive measures adopted in retaliation is specifically for the purpose of forcing the minority to subjugation under its iron fist and crush the rebellion to render the minority weak in the future. Given the exhaustion of most, if not all, negotiation and compromise within a diplomatic and political framework, the minority have two options: 1) rebellion till death; 2) subjugation till death.
In this particular case, a foreign power decides to hear the cries of the oppressed and begins to lend its diplomatic and political support to make a moral claim for whatever sort of intervention to resolve the conflict. However, despite these efforts, the oppressing side ignores the foreign powers efforts. Now, if the foreign power does intervene on the basis of humanitarian concerns to liberate the minority from the reign of terror that subjects to such misery and death, war becomes a necessary and moral objective on part of the foreign power to liberate the minority people. But as previously stated, war and the strife and chaos that comes with it are undesirable; however, in this particular circumstance something that may be ‘bad’ as war can be said to be a for a good cause. Therefore, the absolutist claim that war is wholly a bad thing, or that it cannot be for a good cause despite its undesirability, is reasonably refuted.
Reply
Join the conversation
Is it okay to do bad things for a good cause?