consequentialism

(redirected from consequentialists)
Also found in: Medical.

con·se·quen·tial·ism

 (kŏn′sĭ-kwĕn′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
The view that the value of an action derives solely from the value of its consequences.

con′se·quen′tial·ist n.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

consequentialism

(ˌkɒnsɪˈkwɛnʃəˌlɪzəm)
n
(Philosophy) ethics the doctrine that an action is right or wrong according as its consequences are good or bad
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
Most consequentialists will say relieving suffering is good because it makes people happier.
Epistemic consequentialists think that epistemic norms are about believing the truth and avoiding error.
However, when reading through these critiques, it is obvious that not all welfare economists are strict consequentialists. Similarly, the proponents of a more deontological approach do not necessarily dismiss the consequentialist approach of welfare economics.
Many consequentialists can offer a straightforward rationale for the intuition by appealing to interpersonal aggregation.
While there exist many different forms of consequentialism with regard to the class of actions which fall under the doctrine and the range of right- and wrong-making properties, the key aspect for consequentialists dealing with risk and uncertainty lies in defining the kind of consequences on the basis of which the deontic status of an act is judged.
Since consequentialists argue that insider trading should be permitted,
Indirect consequentialists, such as rule-utilitarians, may have fewer practical disagreements with virtue ethicists, but their positions are still very different at the level of theoretical foundations.
The ongoing debate over efficient breach theory is not just a debate between consequentialists and deontologists; it is also--and perhaps even primarily--a debate between partisans of competing virtues.
However, any resort to a more objectivist account of well-being would require consequentialists to justify that account and would make their conclusions much more controversial; it would also open up the possibility that the value of these goods might ground an argument against enhancement.
"Consequentialists" argue that certain jests are morally suspect because they cause harm, or are likely to.
Insofar as consequentialists discern what actors do want by reference to what they should as rational actors want they are not respecting autonomy in the same way deontological autonomists would.
While consequentialists hold different views about "what is to be maximized and what is the proper object of moral assessment (acts, rules, attitudes, etc.)," their theories "are specified by their commitment to either the maximum realization of concrete good(s) or to the maximum diminishment of evil(s) ..." (33).