Editing Consequentialism (section)

===Action guidance===
One important characteristic of many [[Normative ethics|normative]] moral theories such as consequentialism is the ability to produce practical moral judgements. At the very least, any moral theory needs to define the standpoint from which the goodness of the consequences are to be determined. What is primarily at stake here is the ''[[moral responsibility|responsibility]]'' of the agent.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stables |first1=Andrew |date=2016 |title=Responsibility beyond rationality: The case for rhizomatic consequentialism |journal=International Journal of Children's Spirituality  |volume=9 |issue=2 |pages=219–225|doi=10.1080/1364436042000234404 |s2cid=214650271 }}</ref>

====The ideal observer====
One common tactic among consequentialists, particularly those committed to an [[Altruism|altruistic]] (selfless) account of consequentialism, is to employ an ideal, neutral observer from which moral judgements can be made. [[John Rawls]], a critic of utilitarianism, argues that utilitarianism, in common with other forms of consequentialism, relies on the perspective of such an [[Ideal observer theory|ideal observer]].<ref name="Scheffler"/> The particular characteristics of this ideal observer can vary from an [[Omniscience|omniscient]] observer, who would grasp all the consequences of any action, to an ideally informed observer, who knows as much as could reasonably be expected, but not necessarily all the circumstances or all the possible consequences. Consequentialist theories that adopt this paradigm hold that right action is the action that will bring about the best consequences from this ideal observer's perspective.{{Citation needed|date=February 2012}}

====The real observer====
In practice, it is very difficult, and at times arguably impossible, to adopt the point of view of an [[Ideal observer theory|ideal observer]]. Individual [[Moral agency|moral agents]] do not know everything about their particular situations, and thus do not know all the possible consequences of their potential actions. For this reason, some theorists have argued that consequentialist theories can only require agents to choose the best action in line with what they know about the situation.<ref name="Mackie">{{Cite book|last=Mackie |first=J. L. |author-link=J. L. Mackie |orig-date=1977 |title=Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong |publisher=Penguin |location=London |isbn=978-0-14-013558-9 |year=1990}}</ref> However, if this approach is naïvely adopted, then moral agents who, for example, recklessly fail to reflect on their situation, and act in a way that brings about terrible results, could be said to be acting in a morally justifiable way. Acting in a situation without first informing oneself of the circumstances of the situation can lead to even the most well-intended actions yielding miserable consequences. As a result, it could be argued that there is a moral imperative for agents to inform themselves as much as possible about a situation before judging the appropriate course of action. This imperative, of course, is derived from consequential thinking: a better-informed agent is able to bring about better consequences.{{Citation needed|date=February 2012}}