The consequentialist case for liberty isn't perfect. But perfection isn't on the table. So we should go for the least imperfect moral theory—and that's consequentialism.

The consequentialist says yes, because you’re maximizing overall good and outcomes are what matter. The deontologist says no, because you have a duty to not kill anyone as a means to an end, and ...

The Consequentialist Principle (CP) Pojman defines the consequentialist principle as holding that: “the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the goodness or badness of the results that ...

The three schools are virtue ethics, consequentialist ethics, and deontological or duty-based ethics. Each approach provides a different way to understand ethics.

Barbra Clayton and Charles Goodman have recently proposed interpretations of Mahāyāna philosophy that take its fundamental ethical commitments to be consequentialist. There are aspects of the ...

But consequentialist moral reasoning has been gaining legitimacy since the 1930s and it began to heavily influence legal ethics after the publication of John Rawls’s “A Theory of Justice” in ...

But I again don’t see that this is consequentialist. God, who unlike us knows the end from the beginning, came to earth and was who he was in the midst of wicked creatures who are what they are.

Consequentialist theories don't pay direct attention to whether an act is carried out with good or bad intentions; most people think these are highly relevant to moral judgements.