One set of ethical theories that has become extremely popular stresses the importance of focusing on the consequences of your actions. These theories are known as consequentialist theories. The most famous consequentialist theory is called utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is often summed up by the phrase “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” Some thinkers trace similar ideas back to ancient philosophers in both Eastern and Western traditions.
Utilitarianism is easy to understand. In its most basic form, it argues that if you can increase the overall happiness of the world in some way, then you should. By concentrating on happiness, utilitarians are making claims about what they think makes an outcome or consequence good. Not all consequentialists believe happiness is the only good thing, but utilitarianism is the most popular form of consequentialism.
Besides being easy to understand, utilitarian ethics also is pretty appealing. Who would be opposed to creating more of what’s good? Not us! However, applying this theory in your daily life requires you to understand what it means to create the most good possible and have the commitment to being impartial in many of your daily actions. This lesson takes a closer look at consequential ethics, most specifically utilitarianism and its characteristics, applications to daily life, and challenges.
Think of a time when your decision led to positive results for others. Did you consider the consequences more than your intentions?
A family of ethical theories that evaluate right and wrong based on the outcomes or consequences of actions.
Paying Close Attention to Results: Consequences Matter
Consequentialist ethical theories separate right and wrong actions by focusing on the consequences of those actions. The better the consequences, the more consequentialism requires you to bring them about. The worse the consequences, the more consequentialism forbids you from bringing them about.
For example, imagine you’re somewhere in Manhattan, and a time bomb is ticking. The clock beside you is counting down. When it detonates, millions of people will be killed and an untold number of others will be injured and will suffer. The only person who knows where the time bomb is — a confirmed terrorist — sits next to you in restraints, and he isn’t talking. Your team has tried everything: You’ve appealed to his human decency, bargained for a reduced sentence, promised massive amounts of money, and even made threats. Nothing works. You think about the one option left on the table: torturing the terrorist. Doing so provides some chance that the terrorist would give you the information you need to save millions of lives. But despite the grave consequences of not locating the bomb, torture is unethical isn’t it?
So how should you react in this example? The following sections take a closer look at a couple characteristics of consequences and discuss how valuable consequences are to people.
In situations where harm might prevent greater harm, how do you determine what is ethically right?
Medical professionals often face ethical dilemmas where they must choose between two actions, both with significant consequences. For example, allocating limited resources like organ transplants or vaccines often follows utilitarian principles to maximize overall benefit.
Consequences matter to everyone
When you encounter an event that could cause suffering, you have an ethical imperative to prevent it from happening. If this idea seems to register strongly on your common sense meter, it’s because so many people share these same intuitions — that consequences matter to ethics.
To revisit the previous time bomb example, what if torture were a reliable method of getting the truth from someone who doesn’t want to tell it? In such a case, would an act like torture really be wrong if it saved millions of people from needless suffering? Questions like this point to an important thought that everyone has about ethics: Maybe what really matters in ethics aren’t the actions themselves but the outcomes, or consequences, of those actions. After all, torture seems to be wrong because of the outrageous suffering that it inflicts without any real substantial benefit. Lots of unethical actions seem to get their “wrongness” from their bad consequences. For example, sometimes lying may seem to cause more happiness in the short term, but it often leads to pain and regret when the lie comes out.
The ethical theory that holds we should act to produce the greatest overall happiness or well-being.
Maybe what really matters in ethics aren’t the actions themselves but the outcomes, or consequences, of those actions.
- Consequentialism evaluates actions based on outcomes, not motives.
- Utilitarianism is the most well-known consequentialist theory, focusing on increasing happiness or well-being.
Does the end justify the means?
The debate about whether consequences are the source of ethics is alive and well in today’s popular culture. In fact, it comes up every time people debate whether an end (a consequence) is justified by the means (actions) used to get there. See what you think about the following situations, and whether the end, or consequence, is good enough to justify the means used to get there:
- ✓ A woman having significant labor pains needs to get to a hospital. Her partner breaks several traffic laws — passing in no passing zones, speeding, and driving through red lights — in order to get her to the hospital before she gives birth to their baby.
- ✓ A student needs to pass one more class in order to get her civil engineering degree. She has a job waiting that’s contingent on her getting the degree. She can’t seem to grasp the material in the class, though, so she steals the answers to the final exam in order to pass.
- ✓ A medical researcher has a hunch about a treatment that will save many lives. In order to bring the treatment to market faster, she experiments on unsuspecting subjects. Though some of the test subjects die from the treatment’s harmful effects, it proves a success and goes on to save many people who would have died while the treatment was still in clinical trials.
Each of these situations differs in important respects. If you find yourself saying “yes” or “no” to them, or “yes” to some and “no” to others, ask yourself why. Is it because in some cases the good consequences produced aren’t sufficient to make the action an ethical one? Or is it something else? These “intuition pumps” can really help you to take stock of your own ethical feelings and help you to get a feel for which theories appeal and don’t appeal to your sense of what’s right.
So the consequences of an action can be understood as the effects caused by an action. And the quality of these consequences depend on how much good those consequences contain (for now, it’s fine to think of it as happiness, well-being, or pleasure). Notice how this method of thinking about ethics is entirely different from basing ethics on the principles and/or motives behind actions. Motives cause actions, but consequences are produced by actions. A person who saves a child from being hit by a car causes a good outcome regardless of whether her motive was a self-serving one or an expression of true care for the child.
Utilitarianism always supports doing whatever leads to the greatest happiness, no matter what.
Utilitarianism weighs both the positive and negative consequences, and many utilitarians argue that some actions (like torture or killing) may still be wrong if the harm outweighs the benefit—even if some happiness is produced.
Psychological studies show that people often rely on their intuition when judging whether a consequence is “good” or “bad.” However, utilitarianism encourages us to use reasoned calculation, sometimes overriding our gut feelings in favor of maximizing well-being. This distinction can create tension, as our instincts may conflict with what a strict utilitarian approach requires.
Choose a recent decision you made. Map out both the positive and negative consequences for yourself and others, and consider how a utilitarian might have evaluated your choice.
- Write down your decision and list all the consequences you can think of.
- Weigh the happiness or suffering for everyone affected, not just yourself.
- Reflect: Would a utilitarian have agreed with your decision? Why or why not?
How comfortable are you with the idea that, sometimes, breaking rules or acting against your instincts could be the most ethical option?
Consequences ethically trump principles and character
From a consequentialist perspective, results are given all the ethical emphasis. Following principles and developing the appropriate character aren’t nearly as important to consequentialists. If a person could succeed in preventing suffering using self-serving motives or violating a principle against lying, for instance, it wouldn’t matter that much. Consequentialists care about increasing happiness and preventing suffering above all else.
Think of it this way: Principles and character traits in ethical theories usually work like roadblocks. A particular road may be tempting to travel because it leads to good consequences for yourself or others. But because you want to be ethical, you don’t go down certain roads. The roads you don’t travel usually include those that require actions like inflicting harm on others, deceiving people, breaking promises, and even torturing terrorists who have important information.
In a consequentialist ethical theory (like utilitarianism), these forbidden roads aren’t necessarily off-limits. They’re only off-limits if they aren’t the road leading to the best consequences you can create at the time. In the ticking time bomb scenario we mention earlier in this section, perhaps torture could lead to the best consequences. As a result, a consequentialist would at least consider taking this road. In fact, he may even say you’re ethically required to take it.
Ethicists working in policy often use utilitarian calculations to guide decisions about public health, safety regulations, and even disaster response, aiming to maximize benefit for the most people possible.
Utilitarianism challenges us to make ethical decisions by focusing on outcomes and striving to increase happiness and well-being for as many people as possible.
Consequentialist theories, like utilitarianism, may require us to set aside personal motives or traditional rules if doing so produces the best possible results.
What is consequentialism?
Tap to revealIt is the ethical view that judges actions based on their outcomes or consequences.
How does utilitarianism define a “good” consequence?
Tap to revealAs one that increases overall happiness, well-being, or pleasure.
What distinguishes utilitarianism from other ethical theories?
Tap to revealIt focuses on maximizing happiness for the greatest number, rather than following rules or motives.
According to utilitarianism, what makes an action ethically right?
A deeper journaling question for self-directed learners.
Think about a controversial ethical issue (such as animal testing, lying to protect someone, or breaking the law to help others). How would a utilitarian approach this issue, and how does that compare to your own view?
Do you think focusing only on consequences is enough for making moral decisions? Why or why not?