Editing Consequentialism (section)

===Value of consequences===
One way to divide various consequentialisms is by the types of consequences that are taken to matter most, that is, which consequences count as good states of affairs. According to [[utilitarianism]], a good action is one that results in an increase in [[pleasure]], and the best action is one that results in the most pleasure for the greatest number. Closely related is [[eudaimonia|eudaimonic]] consequentialism, according to which a full, flourishing life, which may or may not be the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure, is the ultimate aim. Similarly, one might adopt an aesthetic consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. However, one might fix on non-psychological goods as the relevant effect. Thus, one might pursue an increase in [[Equality of outcome|material equality]] or [[Freedom (political)|political liberty]] instead of something like the more ephemeral "pleasure". Other theories adopt a package of several goods, all to be promoted equally. As the consequentialist approach contains an inherent assumption that the outcomes of a moral decision can be quantified in terms of "goodness" or "badness," or at least put [[Order theory|in order of increasing preference]], it is an especially suited moral theory for a [[Probability|probabilistic]] and [[Decision theory|decision theoretical]] approach.<ref>Simmons, H. J. 1986. "[https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/5782/1/fulltext.pdf The quantification of 'happinenss' in utilitarianism]" ([[Ph.D. thesis]]). Hamilton, ON: [[McMaster University]].</ref><ref>[[Robert Audi|Audi, Robert]]. 2007. "Can Utilitarianism Be Distributive? Maximization and Distribution as Criteria in Managerial Decisions." ''[[Business Ethics Quarterly]]'' 17(4):593–611.</ref>