Editing Consequentialism (section)

===Negative consequentialism===
{{See also|Negative consequentialism}}
Most consequentialist theories focus on ''promoting'' some sort of good consequences. However, negative utilitarianism lays out a consequentialist theory that focuses solely on minimizing bad consequences.

One major difference between these two approaches is the agent's responsibility. ''Positive'' consequentialism demands that we bring about good states of affairs, whereas ''negative'' consequentialism requires that we avoid bad ones. Stronger versions of negative consequentialism will require active intervention to prevent bad and ameliorate existing harm. In weaker versions, simple forbearance from acts tending to harm others is sufficient. An example of this is the [[Slippery slope|slippery-slope]] argument, which encourages others to avoid a specified act on the grounds that it may ultimately lead to undesirable consequences.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Haigh|first1=Matthew|last2=Wood|first2=Jeffrey S.|last3=Stewart|first3=Andrew J.|date=2016-07-01|title=Slippery slope arguments imply opposition to change|journal=Memory & Cognition|language=en|volume=44|issue=5|pages=819–836|doi=10.3758/s13421-016-0596-9|pmid=26886759|s2cid=25691758|issn=0090-502X|url=http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/26101/1/SSA_Manuscript.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180719090729/http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/26101/1/SSA_Manuscript.pdf |archive-date=2018-07-19 |url-status=live|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Often "negative" consequentialist theories assert that reducing suffering is more important than increasing pleasure. [[Karl Popper]], for example, claimed that "from the moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure."<ref>[[Karl Popper|Popper, Karl]]. 1945. ''[[The Open Society and Its Enemies]]'' 1. [[Routledge]]. pp. 284–85.</ref> (While Popper is not a consequentialist per se, this is taken as a classic statement of negative utilitarianism.) When considering a theory of [[justice]], negative consequentialists may use a statewide or global-reaching principle: the reduction of suffering (for the disadvantaged) is more valuable than increased pleasure (for the affluent or luxurious).