Consequentialist ethics judges whether an action is morally right or wrong primarily by its outcomes. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach that generally supports the action producing the greatest overall benefit, or least overall harm, for those affected.
This is HL-only content from HL.c Environmental ethics, specifically understanding HL.c.10. The reasoning follows these steps:
- Identify the possible actions, such as building a dam or protecting the existing river ecosystem.
- Predict the environmental, social and economic consequences of each option.
- Consider who or what experiences benefits and harms. Depending on the ethical framework, this may include humans, non-human animals, species or ecosystems.
- Compare the overall outcomes and select the action expected to produce the best balance of benefits over harms.
For example, a consequentialist assessment of China's Three Gorges Dam could weigh renewable electricity generation, reduced reliance on fossil fuels and flood control against population displacement, habitat loss, sediment disruption and damage to cultural sites. A utilitarian might support the dam if its total long-term benefits exceed its total harms. However, uncertainty, unequal impacts and the difficulty of comparing different types of value complicate this calculation.
| Ethical approach | Main basis for judging an action | Dam example |
|---|---|---|
| Consequentialist | Outcomes of the action | Support it if overall benefits exceed harms |
| Rights-based or deontological | Whether the action respects rights and duties | Oppose forced displacement even if society gains overall |
| Virtue ethics | Character and intentions of the decision-maker | Ask whether the decision shows justice and responsibility |
A common misconception is that consequentialism simply means “the ends justify the means.” More precisely, it requires systematic consideration of all relevant consequences, including unintended effects and environmental justice: benefits may be widespread while harms fall disproportionately on local or marginalized communities.
Exam technique: For an explain question, define the approach and show how outcomes determine moral judgment. For evaluate or discuss, compare benefits and harms, include a named example, address affected stakeholders and uncertainty, and reach a supported conclusion.