What is Consequentialism?
Consequentialism is a class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. In simple terms: the ends justify the means. If an action results in a “good” outcome, it is considered a “good” action.
The most prominent form of consequentialism is Utilitarianism.
Jeremy Bentham and the Hedonic Calculus
The founder of modern Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, based his ethics on a simple observation: humans are governed by two sovereign masters—pleasure and pain. Therefore, the goal of morality should be to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
Bentham proposed the Greatest Happiness Principle: “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.”
To make morality objective, Bentham developed the Hedonic Calculus, a method for calculating the amount of pleasure an action would produce based on several factors:
- Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
- Duration: How long will it last?
- Certainty: How likely is it to occur?
- Propinquity: How soon will it happen?
- Fecundity: Will it lead to further pleasures?
- Purity: How free from pain is it?
- Extent: How many people are affected?
John Stuart Mill: Higher and Lower Pleasures
One of the main criticisms of Bentham’s theory was that it seemed like a “philosophy for swine,” valuing the pleasure of eating or sleeping as much as the pleasure of reading poetry.
John Stuart Mill, a student of Bentham, refined the theory by introducing a distinction between Higher and Lower pleasures.
- Lower Pleasures: Physical, sensual pleasures (food, sex, sleep).
- Higher Pleasures: Intellectual and moral pleasures (art, philosophy, friendship).
Mill famously stated: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” He argued that anyone who has experienced both types of pleasure will always prefer the higher ones.
Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism
Modern utilitarians are often divided into two groups:
- Act Utilitarianism: We should evaluate each individual action by the amount of happiness it produces. If lying in a specific instance produces more happiness than the truth, you should lie.
- Rule Utilitarianism: We should follow rules that, if generally followed, produce the most happiness. Even if lying might help in one specific case, a rule against lying is better for society in the long run. Therefore, we should generally not lie.
Critiques of Utilitarianism
While Utilitarianism is practical and egalitarian (everyone’s happiness counts equally), it faces several significant objections:
1. The Problem of Justice and Rights
If the “greatest happiness” could be achieved by punishing an innocent person to stop a riot, utilitarianism might seem to require it. This conflicts with our basic intuition of individual rights.
2. The Demandingness Objection
If we must always act to maximize global happiness, can we ever spend money on a movie or a nice dinner for ourselves? Shouldn’t that money always go to a charity where it would produce more happiness? Utilitarianism seems to demand an impossible level of self-sacrifice.
3. The Problem of Prediction
How can we truly know the long-term consequences of our actions? An action that seems good today might lead to disaster in ten years.
4. Special Obligations
Utilitarianism requires “impartiality.” But do we really have the same obligation to a stranger as we do to our own child? Most people believe we have special duties to friends and family that utilitarianism struggles to account for.
The Trolley Problem
The tension between Utilitarianism and Deontology is perfectly captured in the Trolley Problem.
- A runaway trolley is headed toward five people. You can pull a lever to switch it to a track with only one person.
- A Utilitarian would pull the lever (1 death is better than 5).
- A Deontologist might refuse to pull the lever, arguing that actively choosing to kill an innocent person is a violation of a moral rule, even if it saves others.
Conclusion
Utilitarianism remains a powerful force in public policy, economics, and law. It forces us to think about the real-world impact of our choices and demands that we consider the well-being of all sentient creatures. While it may struggle with the nuances of individual rights, its core message—to make the world a better, happier place—remains a fundamental ethical ideal.
Consider this example concept in the following exercise:
How did John Stuart Mill modify Jeremy Bentham's original Utilitarian theory?
Analytical Worked Example
A strong philosophical analysis does not merely name a doctrine; it tests what the doctrine can explain, what it must assume, and where it becomes costly. Consider a student evaluating Utilitarianism and Consequentialism through an ordinary disagreement. One person claims the position is attractive because it gives a clear standard for judgment. Another objects that the same standard may oversimplify human experience. The useful response is not to choose a side immediately, but to reconstruct the argument in stages: define the central claim, identify the reasons offered for it, state the strongest objection, and then decide whether the theory can answer that objection without changing into a different theory.
For this topic, that means asking three questions. First, what is the theory treating as basic: reality, knowledge, duty, happiness, virtue, language, power, experience, or social order? Second, what does it count as evidence: logical consistency, perception, historical explanation, practical success, reflective equilibrium, or lived experience? Third, what would falsify or seriously weaken the view? A doctrine that cannot name its own pressure points is not yet a philosophical position; it is only a slogan.
A good revision also distinguishes exposition from evaluation. Exposition asks what the view says and why its defenders found it compelling. Evaluation asks whether the view survives comparison with rival accounts. Keeping those tasks separate prevents two common errors: rejecting a theory before understanding its internal logic, and summarizing a theory so sympathetically that no critical judgment remains.
Example
Suppose an essay argues that Utilitarianism and Consequentialism is persuasive because it gives a disciplined answer to the lesson’s central problem. The essay should give a concrete case, not just a definition. It might compare two decisions, two interpretations of an artwork, two accounts of personal identity, or two political institutions. The example should show how the view changes the conclusion. If the same conclusion would follow without the theory, the example has not done enough philosophical work.
Exercise
Write a short argument map for this lesson’s main view. Use four labeled lines: claim, reason, objection, and reply. The claim should be one sentence. The reason should explain why an intelligent defender would accept it. The objection should be charitable rather than dismissive. The reply should either answer the objection or concede a limit. After writing the map, revise the claim so it becomes more precise and less rhetorical.