Editing Ethics (section)

==== Types ====
There are many different types of consequentialism. They differ based on what type of entity they evaluate, what consequences they take into consideration, and how they determine the value of consequences.<ref>{{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=Lead section}}</ref> Most theories assess the moral value of acts. However, consequentialism can also be used to evaluate [[motivation|motives]], [[character trait]]s, rules, and [[policies]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=Lead section, § 5. Consequences of What? Rights, Relativity, and Rules}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} }}</ref>

Many types assess the value of consequences based on whether they promote happiness or suffering. But there are also alternative evaluative principles, such as [[desire]] satisfaction, [[autonomy]], [[freedom]], [[knowledge]], [[friendship]], [[beauty]], and self-perfection.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Haines|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=Lead section, § 3. What Is Good? Hedonistic Vs. Pluralistic Consequentialisms}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} }}</ref> Some forms of consequentialism hold that there is only a [[Axiology#Monism and pluralism|single source of value]].<ref name="Alexander 2021 loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism">{{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}}</ref> The most prominent among them is classical [[utilitarianism]], which states that the moral value of acts only depends on the [[pleasure]] and [[suffering]] they cause.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}} }}</ref> An alternative approach says that there are many different sources of value, which all contribute to one overall value.<ref name="Alexander 2021 loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism"/> Before the 20th century, consequentialists were only concerned with the total of value or the aggregate good. In the 20th century, alternative views were developed that additionally consider the distribution of value. One of them states that an equal distribution of goods is better than an unequal distribution even if the aggregate good is the same.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} | {{harvnb|Cummiskey|1996|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZYPmCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA157 157–158]}} }}</ref>

There are disagreements about which consequences should be assessed. An important distinction is between act consequentialism and rule consequentialism. According to act consequentialism, the consequences of an act determine its moral value. This means that there is a direct relation between the consequences of an act and its moral value. Rule consequentialism, by contrast, holds that an act is right if it follows a certain set of rules. Rule consequentialism determines the best rules by considering their outcomes at a community level. People should follow the rules that lead to the best consequences when everyone in the community follows them. This implies that the relation between an act and its consequences is indirect. For example, if telling the truth is one of the best rules, then according to rule consequentialism, a person should tell the truth even in specific cases where lying would lead to better consequences.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=5. Consequences of What? Rights, Relativity, and Rules}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2023|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Haines|loc=§ 1f. Rule Consequentialism}} | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|p=164}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}} }}</ref>

Another disagreement is between actual and expected consequentialism. According to the traditional view, only the actual consequences of an act affect its moral value. One difficulty of this view is that many consequences cannot be known in advance. This means that in some cases, even well-planned and intentioned acts are morally wrong if they inadvertently lead to negative outcomes. An alternative perspective states that what matters are not the actual consequences but the expected consequences. This view takes into account that when deciding what to do, people have to rely on their limited knowledge of the total consequences of their actions. According to this view, a course of action has positive moral value despite leading to an overall negative outcome if it had the highest [[expected value]], for example, because the negative outcome could not be anticipated or was unlikely.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|pp=162–164}} | {{harvnb|Sinnott-Armstrong|2023|loc=§ 1. Classic Utilitarianism, § 4. Which Consequences? Actual Vs. Expected Consequentialisms}} }}</ref>

A further difference is between [[Maximization (psychology)|maximizing]] and [[satisficing]] consequentialism. According to maximizing consequentialism, only the best possible act is morally permitted. This means that acts with positive consequences are wrong if there are alternatives with even better consequences. One criticism of maximizing consequentialism is that it demands too much by requiring that people do significantly more than they are socially expected to. For example, if the best action for someone with a good salary would be to donate 70% of their income to charity, it would be morally wrong for them to only donate 65%. Satisficing consequentialism, by contrast, only requires that an act is "good enough" even if it is not the best possible alternative. According to this view, it is possible to do more than one is morally required to do.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hooker|2005|p=164}} | {{harvnb|Slote|2005|pp=938–939}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism}} | {{harvnb|Singer|2016|pp=47–48}} | {{harvnb|Byron|2004|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=bRFFsQE2BrQC&pg=PA9 9]}} }}</ref>{{efn|This state is known as [[supererogation]].<ref>{{harvnb|Heyd|2019|loc=Lead section}}</ref>}}

[[Mohism]] in ancient [[Chinese philosophy]] is one of the earliest forms of consequentialism. It arose in the 5th century BCE and argued that political action should promote justice as a means to increase the welfare of the people.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Littlejohn|loc=§ 1c. Mozi (c. 470-391 B.C.E.) and Mohism}} | {{harvnb|Zhang|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=2ka8EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA96 96]}} }}</ref>