Consequentialism evaluates actions, policies, or character by their outcomes or consequences rather than by intrinsic rightness or agent virtue. Consequentialists ask: what are the actual and foreseeable results, how do we measure good outcomes, and how do we compare states of affairs? This framework encompasses utilitarianism (maximize overall well-being), prioritarianism (give extra weight to worst-off), agent-centered views (prioritize agent's projects), and many applied ethics approaches focused on impact assessment.
Apply consequentialist reasoning to a case: should you break a promise if doing so produces better overall outcomes? Notice what the framework highlights and what it seems to ignore.
Not all consequentialists think only outcomes matter; many allow agent-relative projects, side constraints, or procedural fairness. Also, calculating consequences is difficult in practice, but that limitation on application doesn't refute the framework itself.
You've distinguished normative from metaethical questions: normative ethics asks what we ought to do, while metaethics asks about the nature and status of moral claims. Consequentialism is a normative theory — a systematic answer to "what makes an action right or wrong?" Its answer is simple in structure: an action is right if and only if it produces the best available outcomes. Everything else — intentions, rules, duties, character — matters only instrumentally, as means to producing good consequences. This distinguishes consequentialism sharply from deontological theories, which hold that some actions (lying, killing innocents) are intrinsically wrong regardless of outcomes, and from virtue ethics, which centers the character of the agent rather than the consequences of individual acts.
The most influential consequentialist theory is utilitarianism, developed by Jeremy Bentham and refined by John Stuart Mill: the right action maximizes the sum total of well-being (utility) across all affected parties. Notice what this framework demands: you must consider *all* affected parties equally, without special weight given to yourself, your friends, or your society. This impartiality requirement is one of consequentialism's most demanding and controversial features. It implies, for instance, that giving money to a stranger in desperate need may be morally required rather than merely praiseworthy — if that money produces more good for the stranger than for you, then impartial accounting says you ought to give it. Peter Singer's influential arguments for effective altruism apply exactly this logic.
The framework also requires a theory of value — an account of what good outcomes consist of. Different consequentialists disagree here. Hedonistic utilitarians say good outcomes are states of pleasure or happiness. Preference utilitarians say good outcomes are states where preferences are satisfied. Objective list theorists say some things (knowledge, friendship, achievement) are good independently of whether people prefer them or experience pleasure from them. The choice of value theory matters enormously: hedonism implies that a "happiness machine" that produces constant pleasure would constitute the best possible life; preference utilitarianism suggests that satisfying preferences — even harmful ones — is good; objective list theories resist both conclusions.
Consequentialism faces persistent structural objections that reveal genuine tensions in the framework. The demandingness objection holds that maximizing impartially leaves no room for special obligations to family, no permissible personal projects, and perpetual demands on your resources. The integrity objection (Bernard Williams) argues that consequentialism alienates agents from their own commitments by requiring them to always calculate rather than act from character. And the rights objection holds that pure outcome-maximization can justify horrifying acts — torturing one innocent person to prevent harm to many — in a way that seems clearly wrong regardless of the numbers. These objections don't refute consequentialism — they expose what any consequentialist theory must either accommodate or bite the bullet on. Understanding where the framework succeeds and strains is itself the most important lesson: no theory handles all cases cleanly, and the disagreements between frameworks track genuine tensions in moral life.
Topics in reflective domains aren't scored by quiz answers. Read, reflect, and mark when you've thought it through.