MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

M O R A L P H I L O S O P H Y A N D E T H I C S

Chapter III
————————————

Consequentialist Ethics
Bentham • Mill • Altruism • Rule & Act Consequentialism

CHAPTER LEARNING OUTCOMES

By the end of this chapter, the student will be able to: (1) define consequentialism
and explain its central moral claim; (2) distinguish normative, descriptive, and
metaethics; (3) explain Bentham’s principle of utility and the Hedonic Calculus;
(4) articulate Mill’s revision of utilitarianism and his distinction between higher
and lower pleasures; (5) define ethical altruism and evaluate its strengths and
weaknesses; (6) distinguish rule consequentialism from act consequentialism; (7)
identify the principal criticisms of consequentialist ethics; and (8) evaluate
consequentialism from the standpoint of Catholic moral theology, with particular
reference to Veritatis Splendor.

PART I — WHAT IS CONSEQUENTIALISM?

Consequentialism is one of the three great traditions of Western moral philosophy—

alongside virtue ethics and deontology. Its central and defining claim is
straightforward: the moral value of an action is determined entirely by its
consequences. An action is right if it produces good outcomes; it is wrong if it
produces bad ones. Character, intention, and the intrinsic nature of the act matter
only insofar as they contribute to—or detract from—the goodness of the result.

Consequentialism
The family of ethical theories holding that the moral rightness or wrongness of an
action is determined solely by its consequences. An action is morally right if and
only if it produces the best available outcome—typically defined as the greatest
overall well-being, happiness, or utility. Consequentialism is outcome-focused, not
agent- or act-focused.

Consequentialism stands in sharp contrast to both virtue ethics (which grounds

morality in character) and deontology (which grounds it in duty and the intrinsic
nature of acts). Where the virtue ethicist asks “What kind of person should I be?” and

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 1

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

the deontologist asks “What is my duty?” the consequentialist asks “What outcome
will this action produce?”

Form of Description
Consequentialism

Utilitarianism The most dominant form of consequentialism. Morality

consists in maximizing overall happiness (utility) and
minimizing pain. Associated with Jeremy Bentham and
John Stuart Mill.

Rule Consequentialism Judges actions by whether they conform to rules whose

general observance would produce the best
consequences. Offers a more stable, law-like framework
than act-by-act calculation.

Act Consequentialism Judges each individual action directly by whether it

produces the best available outcome in that specific
situation. More flexible but more demanding and less
predictable.

Ethical Altruism A consequentialist position holding that the morally right

action is the one that produces the greatest benefit for
others—even at the expense of the agent’s own
happiness.

PART II — NORMATIVE, DESCRIPTIVE, AND

METAETHICS

Before examining specific consequentialist theories, it is essential to understand the

three fundamental levels at which ethical inquiry operates. Any systematic study of
ethics involves all three, and confusing them leads to serious misunderstandings of
the positions being debated.

Level of Ethical Inquiry Definition and Central Questions

Normative Ethics The philosophical investigation of the principles,

standards, and rules that ought to govern human
conduct. Normative ethics asks: “What should I do?” and
“What makes an action right or wrong?” It proposes and
defends theories of moral obligation (e.g., the
Categorical Imperative, the Principle of Utility, natural
law). This is the primary domain of our course.

Descriptive Ethics The empirical study of how human beings actually

behave in the moral domain—regardless of whether that
behavior conforms to any normative standard.
Descriptive ethics asks: “What do people actually do?”
and “What do people in this culture believe is right?” It
belongs as much to anthropology, psychology, and
sociology as to philosophy.

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 2

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

Metaethics The philosophical investigation of the foundations of

ethics itself. Metaethics asks: “What is the nature of
moral claims?” “Are moral truths objective or
subjective?” “What do moral terms like ‘good’ and ‘right’
actually mean?” It is the “soil from which all other ethical
philosophies grow,” inquiring into divine intervention,
universal truths, and reason as the sources of moral
obligation.

The distinction between normative and descriptive ethics is crucial for the seminarian.
The priest is called to teach normative ethics—what people ought to do—not merely to
describe what they happen to do. At the same time, effective pastoral ministry
requires accurate knowledge of descriptive ethics: understanding how people actually
reason about moral questions is the prerequisite for guiding them toward the good.
Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia (2016) exemplifies this integration: it takes seriously the
actual moral situations of families while firmly upholding the normative teaching of
the Church.

PART III — JEREMY BENTHAM AND THE

PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) was the British philosopher and legal reformer who first
gave systematic form to utilitarianism—the most influential consequentialist theory in
the Western tradition. His foundational work is An Introduction to the Principles of
Morals and Legislation (1789). For Bentham, the entire edifice of moral philosophy
rests on a single, simple observation about human nature: we are governed by two
sovereign masters—pleasure and pain. From this empirical fact, he derived his entire
moral system.

A. The Principle of Utility

Principle of Utility (Bentham)

An action is morally right if and only if it produces more happiness (pleasure) and
less pain than any available alternative. The morally obligatory action is the one
that maximizes the overall balance of pleasure over pain for all those affected. This
is Bentham’s “greatest happiness principle.”

“The said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that
is the measure of right and wrong.”
— Jeremy Bentham

B. The Hedonic Calculus

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 3

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

Bentham recognized that “pleasure” and “pain” are not simple, undifferentiated
experiences. Different actions produce pleasures of varying quality and quantity, and
moral decision-making requires a method for comparing them. His answer was the
Hedonic Calculus (also called the Utility Calculus)—a systematic procedure for
measuring the moral weight of consequences along seven dimensions:

Dimension of the What It Measures

Calculus

1. Intensity How strong is the pleasure or pain produced by the

action?

2. Duration How long does the pleasure or pain last?

3. Certainty How probable is it that the pleasure or pain will actually

result?

4. Propinquity How soon after the action does the pleasure or pain
occur? (Immediate pleasure vs. delayed benefit.)

5. Fecundity How likely is the pleasure to be followed by further

pleasures—or the pain by further pains?

6. Purity How likely is the pleasure to be followed by pain (or vice

versa)? A “pure” pleasure is one not followed by its
opposite.

7. Extent How many people are affected by the pleasure or pain

produced?

The Hedonic Calculus produces what Bentham called positive utility units, or
“hedons.” The action with the highest net hedon score is the morally obligatory action.
Bentham did not intend this calculus to be applied to every trivial decision, but to
significant moral and political choices where careful analysis of consequences is
genuinely warranted.

CATHOLIC ASSESSMENT: BENTHAM

Bentham’s great contribution was to insist that moral philosophy must take
seriously the real consequences of actions for real people—a genuine insight. His
reduction of all moral value to pleasure and pain, however, is fundamentally
reductive. The Catholic tradition holds that the human person is ordered not
merely to pleasure but to truth, goodness, beauty, and ultimately to God (CCC
1718–1724). Bentham’s system has no place for intrinsically evil acts, for the
inviolability of the human person, or for the transcendent dimension of human life.
John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor (nos. 74–83) directly addresses this deficiency,
insisting that consequences alone cannot determine the moral quality of an act.

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 4

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

PART IV — JOHN STUART MILL AND THE

REFINEMENT OF UTILITARIANISM

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) is the most important figure in the development of
classical utilitarianism. The son of philosopher James Mill and an intellectual prodigy
who was deliberately groomed by both his father and Bentham to become
utilitarianism’s great defender, he went on to produce its most sophisticated and
humane expression in his book Utilitarianism (1863).

Mill accepted Bentham’s foundational principle—that the morally right action is the
one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number—but he identified
and corrected a serious weakness in Bentham’s version: the failure to distinguish
between kinds of pleasure.

A. Higher and Lower Pleasures

Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus treated all pleasures as qualitatively equivalent—
differing only in quantity (intensity, duration, etc.). Mill found this inadequate. It
implied that a life of simple bodily pleasures was just as good, provided enough of
them, as a life of intellectual achievement and moral depth. Mill famously rejected
this: “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”

Category Description

Higher Pleasures Pleasures associated with the exercise of the higher

human faculties—reason, deliberation, moral feeling,
aesthetic appreciation, intellectual inquiry, and spiritual
development. These are qualitatively superior to lower
pleasures, not merely more intense or durable. They are
the pleasures most worthy of a human being.

Lower Pleasures Pleasures of the body and immediate sensation—physical

(Sensations) comfort, food, rest, and other forms of sensory
gratification. Not bad in themselves, but of lesser moral
worth than higher pleasures. A life devoted exclusively to
them is impoverished even if not “unhappy” in Bentham’s
quantitative sense.

The Competent Judge Mill argues that the superiority of higher pleasures is
known by those who have experienced both: someone
who has known both intellectual and merely sensory
pleasure consistently prefers the former. The “competent
judge” is not the unreflective hedonist but the person of
broad experience and cultivated sensibility.

“The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people
actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it. In
like manner, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 5

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

desirable, is that people do actually desire it.”

— John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

B. The Proof of Utility

Mill’s argument for the principle of utility is essentially empirical: happiness is
desirable because people actually desire it—universally and necessarily. He takes the
universality of the human pursuit of happiness as sufficient evidence that happiness is
the proper end of moral life. If all people, always and everywhere, seek happiness,
then happiness must be the good at which ethics aims.

This argument has been widely criticized (G.E. Moore famously called it the
“naturalistic fallacy”—the error of inferring what ought to be from what is). But Mill’s
deeper point is important: ethics cannot be divorced from the actual structure of
human desire and experience. Any moral philosophy that asks people to live against
the grain of what they fundamentally are will fail.

C. Equal Consideration of Interests

Both Bentham and Mill insisted on what they called “an equal consideration of
interests”: in calculating the moral value of an action, everyone’s happiness counts
equally—the moral agent’s own happiness has no special priority over the happiness
of others. This impartiality is a significant moral achievement: it grounds a form of
universal concern for all persons that anticipates, in a secular register, the Christian
command to love one’s neighbor.

CATHOLIC ASSESSMENT: MILL

Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures is a genuine philosophical
advance over Bentham—and resonates with the Catholic tradition’s insistence that
human beings are ordered to goods that transcend mere sensory pleasure (truth,
beauty, virtue, God). His emphasis on equal concern for all persons’ well-being
echoes Catholic Social Teaching’s principle of the universal destination of goods.
However, Mill’s system remains consequentialist: it cannot account for the
absolute moral prohibition of certain acts (such as the direct killing of an innocent
person) regardless of consequences. Veritatis Splendor (nos. 79–83) addresses
this directly, defending the existence of intrinsic evils—acts “which are always
seriously wrong by reason of their object”—against every form of proportionalism
and consequentialist revisionism.

PART V — ETHICAL ALTRUISM

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 6

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

A distinctive and radical form of consequentialism is ethical altruism—the position

that the morally right action is the one whose consequences are most beneficial to
others, even at the expense of the agent’s own happiness and well-being. While
utilitarianism calls for impartiality (treating everyone’s interests equally, including
one’s own), ethical altruism tips the scales decisively in favor of others.

A. Auguste Comte and the Foundation of Altruism

The term altruism was coined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857),
the founder of positivism. Comte introduced it in explicit contrast to egoism—the view
that individuals should always act in their own self-interest. For Comte, the moral
agent has an obligation to further the pleasures and resolve the pain of others, even at
personal cost. He summarized his ethic with the phrase “live for others.” The word
altruism itself derives from the Latin alter—meaning “other.”

“The only real life is the collective life of the race; individual life has no
existence except as an abstraction.”
— Auguste Comte

Ethical Altruism
The moral position holding that an action is right if and only if its consequences are
more beneficial to others than any available alternative—and that the agent’s own
interests have no independent moral weight. The good of others is the proper end
of all moral action. The agent’s happiness matters only insofar as being a morally
good person is itself a form of benefit.

B. Strengths and Weaknesses of Ethical Altruism

Dimension Analysis

Genuine Strength Ethical altruism corrects the self-absorption of many ethical

theories by placing the good of others at the center of moral
life. This resonates powerfully with the Christian moral
tradition, in which love of neighbor (agapē) is the defining
mark of the disciple (Jn 13:35; 1 Cor 13). The priest, in
particular, is called to a life of self-giving in service to others—
a vocation that ethical altruism, at its best, captures.

Problem: Self- Ethical altruism removes the agent’s own happiness from the
Negation moral equation entirely. But if no one has a moral obligation to
promote the agent’s happiness, then the agent has no claim on
others’ care either. This is logically inconsistent and
psychologically damaging. The Catholic tradition holds that
authentic love of neighbor presupposes a proper love of self
(cf. Mt 22:39: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”). Self-

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 7

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

care is the precondition, not the enemy, of genuine generosity.

Problem: Who The altruist presumes to determine and act for the good of
Decides What Is another person. But does the agent have that right? Comte’s
Good for Others? vision of a moral agent who sacrifices himself for the
“collective life of the race” slides easily into paternalism—and
historically into ideological systems (totalitarianism,
collectivism) that subordinate the individual to an abstract
“greater good.” The Church’s social teaching guards against
this error with its principle of subsidiarity (CCC 1883–1885).

Ayn Rand’s Critique The novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905–1982) argued
that ethical altruism is not only wrong but harmful: it produces
guilt, resentment, and the destruction of rational self-interest.
While the Catholic tradition does not endorse Rand’s
objectivist ethics (which go too far in the opposite direction),
her critique correctly identifies the danger of an altruism that
annihilates the self. The Thomistic tradition’s account of
caritas—ordered love that begins with right self-love and
extends outward—is the more adequate framework.

PART VI — RULE CONSEQUENTIALISM

Act consequentialism, as we will see in the next section, requires the moral agent to
calculate the consequences of each individual action from scratch. This is demanding,
unpredictable, and potentially destabilizing—since it seems to permit any act
whatever, provided it produces good enough consequences. Rule consequentialism is
a more structured response to this problem: rather than calculating consequences act
by act, it asks which rules, if generally followed, would produce the best overall
consequences.

Rule Consequentialism
The moral theory holding that an action is right if and only if it conforms to a rule
whose general acceptance would produce the best available consequences for
society. Rather than evaluating each act directly by its outcomes, rule
consequentialism evaluates the rules that govern action, and judges particular acts
by whether they conform to those beneficial rules.

A. How Rule Consequentialism Works

The rule consequentialist proceeds through a structured deliberative process when
facing a moral decision. Rather than asking “What are the consequences of this
particular act?”—the act consequentialist’s question—the rule consequentialist asks:
“What would happen if this kind of act became a universal rule?”

The steps of rule consequentialist reasoning:

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 8

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

• Identify the action being considered and formulate it as a general rule (e.g., “One
may lie to protect a friend’s feelings”).
• Ask: What would the world look like if everyone followed this rule? Would its general
adoption maximize happiness and minimize pain?
• Ask: What would the world look like if everyone followed the opposite rule? Compare
the consequences of both.
• Choose the rule—and the action that conforms to it—whose general adoption would
produce the best overall consequences.

This process is indirect: it does not directly evaluate the consequences of this
particular act, but rather evaluates the consequences of the kind of practice this act
represents. This gives rule consequentialism greater stability and predictability than
act consequentialism, and a closer resemblance to the rule-governed character of law
and social ethics.

B. Rule Consequentialism in Moral and Legal Context

Rule consequentialism is especially relevant to political and legal ethics. Much of what
we call “law” operates on a rule-consequentialist logic: speed limits, property rights,
contract law, and criminal penalties are rules whose general observance produces
better social outcomes than the alternative—even if, in any particular case, breaking
the rule might produce a better immediate result. The consequentialist justification
for law is not that each rule is intrinsically binding but that rule-governed behavior,
taken as a whole, maximizes social utility.

CATHOLIC ASSESSMENT: RULE CONSEQUENTIALISM

Rule consequentialism has genuine affinities with natural law reasoning: both are
concerned with stable, generally applicable moral rules rather than pure situation
ethics. However, the Catholic tradition grounds moral rules in the nature of
human acts and the good of the human person—not in their social utility. The
difference becomes decisive at the margins: a rule consequentialist might accept
that a rule permitting torture is wrong because it produces bad social
consequences; the Catholic tradition holds that torture is intrinsically wrong
because it violates the dignity of the person—regardless of any utilitarian
calculation (CCC 2297–2298). The foundation matters: rules grounded in utility
can be revised when utility changes; rules grounded in human dignity cannot.

PART VII — ACT CONSEQUENTIALISM

Act consequentialism is the most direct, and in some ways the purest, form of
consequentialism. It holds that the moral agent must evaluate each individual action
by its actual consequences in the specific situation—not by whether it conforms to a
general rule. In any given circumstance, the right action is simply the one that
produces the greatest net good for all those affected.

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 9

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

Act Consequentialism
The moral theory holding that an action is right if and only if it produces at least as
much overall good as any available alternative in that specific situation. Moral
reasoning proceeds act by act, not rule by rule. The agent must consider all those
affected and determine which available choice maximizes their total well-being.

A. The Deliberative Procedure

Act consequentialism requires the moral agent to work through a deliberate
procedure for each significant decision:
1. Identify all available options—the full range of actions open to the agent in this
situation.
2. For each option, identify all those affected—directly and indirectly—and estimate
the pleasure or pain the action would produce for each.
3. Assign positive utility units (hedons) to pleasures and negative utility units to pains,
across all affected parties.
4. Calculate the net utility of each option.
5. Choose the option with the highest net utility. This is the morally obligatory action.

B. Illustrative Case: The Injured Dog

The textbook offers a classic illustration of act consequentialist reasoning. Driving to
work, you encounter an injured dog lying in the road—hit by a car whose driver has
fled. Your phone is dead. You have two options:

Option Analysis

Option 1: Stop and Help You must pull over on a busy road, manage an injured
animal, drive to an animal hospital, pay the bill, and
arrive late to work. Your immediate inconvenience is
real; your boss and coworkers are affected. But the dog
receives medical care and likely survives. The dog’s
benefit is substantial and measurable.

Option 2: Drive On You arrive on time. Your boss and coworkers benefit from
your reliability. But the dog continues to suffer and may
die—a significant, preventable harm. You have failed to
increase happiness and decrease pain when you could
have done so at manageable cost to yourself.

Act Consequentialist Option 1 is morally obligatory: the total utility produced

Verdict (the dog’s survival and relief of suffering) outweighs the
disutility (inconvenience, lateness). The numbers favor
helping. The fact that a dog is not a person does not
exempt it from moral consideration—all sentient beings
capable of pleasure and pain count in the utilitarian

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 10

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

calculus.

This example illustrates both the appeal and the challenge of act consequentialism. Its
appeal: it takes seriously the actual suffering of real beings and demands that we
respond. Its challenge: it requires constant, effortful calculation, and it can generate
counterintuitive conclusions—as the criticisms in Part VIII will show.

PART VIII — CRITICISMS OF CONSEQUENTIALIST

ETHICS

Consequentialism has generated some of the most searching criticisms in the history
of moral philosophy. These are not merely technical objections but go to the heart of
what consequentialism gets wrong about the moral life. The Catholic tradition’s
objections, grounded in natural law and the dignity of the person, are among the most
serious.

Criticism Explanation and Catholic Response

1. The Problem of Consequentialism can license the violation of individual rights

Rights and Justice whenever doing so produces a net utility gain. Bentham
himself dismissed the notion of natural rights as “nonsense on
stilts.” But consider: if torturing one innocent person would
prevent great harm to many, a pure consequentialist must say
it is permissible—or even obligatory. This “just feels wrong,” as
Boone notes, because it violates our intuition that persons have
inviolable rights that no calculation can override. The Catholic
tradition grounds this intuition in the dignity of the person
made in the image and likeness of God (imago Dei), whose
dignity is absolute and cannot be traded for a social benefit
(CCC 1700–1706; VS 90).

2. Intrinsic Evils Consequentialism denies that any act is intrinsically wrong—

wrong by its very nature, regardless of consequences. For the
consequentialist, even murder, torture, and rape might be
permissible in principle if they produced enough good
consequences. The Catholic tradition, following Aquinas and
affirmed by Veritatis Splendor, insists that some acts are
intrinsically evil and are always gravely wrong regardless of
intention or consequence: “Circumstances or intentions can
never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object
into an act ‘subjectively’ good” (VS 81). This is the decisive
point of Catholic rejection of consequentialism as a complete
moral theory.

3. The Utilitarianism is far too demanding. If one is always morally

Demandingness obligated to maximize overall utility, then virtually every
Problem moment of personal pleasure, rest, or non-urgent activity is
morally impermissible—since there is almost always something
one could be doing to produce more utility in the world. This

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 11

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

makes utilitarianism psychologically and practically unlivable.

The Catholic tradition’s moral theology distinguishes between
what is required (moral obligation), what is counseled (the
evangelical counsels), and what is supererogatory (beyond
what is required)—a nuanced framework that utilitarianism’s
binary calculus cannot capture.

4. Bernard Williams The philosopher Bernard Williams (1929–2003) argued that

and Integrity utilitarianism destroys the moral integrity of the person. His
“Geroge the Biochemist” thought experiment: a scientist
morally opposed to weapons research is told that if he takes a
weapons job, he can limit the damage compared to his more
zealous competitor. Utilitarianism says George should take the
job. But this requires George to betray his deepest moral
commitments for the sake of a calculation. Williams argues
that a moral theory that asks persons to alienate themselves
from their own convictions robs them of their identity and
humanity—and thereby causes more harm than good.

5. The Epistemic Consequentialism presupposes that agents can reliably predict

Problem the consequences of their actions. But this is often impossible.
The long-term effects of most significant actions are radically
unpredictable. A moral theory that demands accurate
consequence-prediction for every act sets an impossible
standard—and the confidence required to make utilitarian
calculations is itself a form of epistemic arrogance.

PART IX — CATHOLIC THEOLOGICAL

INTEGRATION

Consequentialism must be evaluated not only philosophically but theologically. The

Catholic moral tradition engages consequentialism seriously—recognizing its genuine
insights while firmly rejecting its foundational errors. This engagement is most fully
expressed in John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor (1993), which devotes its central section
(nos. 71–83) to a sustained critique of proportionalism and consequentialism.

A. The Three Fonts of Morality

Catholic moral theology evaluates the morality of any human act by three inseparable
elements—what the tradition calls the three “fonts” or sources of morality:

Font of Morality Definition and Role

The Object (Finis Operis) The act itself, considered in its intrinsic nature and moral
species. The object is “the proximate end of a deliberate
decision” (VS 78)—what the person is actually doing,
prescinding from intention and circumstances. Some
objects are intrinsically evil and can never be chosen
without moral fault, regardless of intention or

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 12

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

consequences.

The Intention (Finis The subjective purpose or goal the agent is pursuing. A
Operantis) good intention can increase the moral merit of an already
good act but cannot make an intrinsically evil act good.
The end does not justify the means: “It is therefore an
error to judge the morality of human acts by considering
only the intention that inspires them” (VS 78).

The Circumstances The conditions surrounding the act (who, what, when,
where, how, with what consequences). Circumstances
can increase or diminish moral responsibility, and can
make an otherwise permissible act wrong. But they
cannot make an intrinsically evil act good.

Consequentialism, in effect, reduces morality to circumstances and consequences

alone—ignoring the moral species of the act and subordinating intention to outcome.
This is precisely what Veritatis Splendor rejects: “One must therefore reject the
thesis, characteristic of teleological and proportionalist theories, which holds that it is
impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species the deliberate choice of
certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, apart from a consideration of the intention
for which the choice is made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that
act for all persons concerned” (VS 79).

B. Proportionalism: A Contemporary Consequentialism

In the decades following the Second Vatican Council, a form of ethical theory called
proportionalism emerged within Catholic moral theology. Proportionalists argued that
no act is intrinsically evil in the absolute sense; rather, one must weigh the “pre-
moral” goods and evils at stake in any situation and choose the action that produces
the proportionately greater good. This is, in essence, a Catholic version of
consequentialism.

Veritatis Splendor explicitly and authoritatively rejected proportionalism. The Pope

taught that this approach “undermines the very concept of morality” (VS 75) by
making the moral evaluation of acts entirely dependent on calculation of
consequences. Against this, he insisted on the existence of “acts which per se and in
themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of
their object” (VS 80). The seminarian must understand this debate: proportionalism is
not a dead academic position but a live option in contemporary pastoral theology, and
its rejection by the Magisterium is authoritative and binding.

C. What Consequentialism Gets Right

It would be a mistake to conclude that consequentialism is simply wrong in every
respect. The Catholic moral tradition, which has always engaged philosophical
traditions with discernment rather than wholesale rejection, recognizes genuine
insights in consequentialist thinking:

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 13

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

• Consequences genuinely matter. Catholic moral theology has never held that
consequences are morally irrelevant. The tradition’s concept of double effect, for
example, requires that the consequences of a permissible act be evaluated and
weighed (CCC 2263–2265). A moral theology indifferent to outcomes would be
irresponsible.
• The well-being of all persons deserves equal moral attention. The consequentialist
principle of equal consideration of interests echoes Catholic Social Teaching’s
preferential option for the poor and the universal destination of goods (CCC 2402–
2406).
• Moral reasoning must engage the real world. The consequentialist insistence that
moral philosophy remain tethered to actual human experience and actual human
suffering is healthy. A purely formal moral theology divorced from lived
consequences risks becoming inhuman.

PART X — SEMINAR DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

The following questions are designed for seminar discussion, small group reflection,
or written response. Students should engage them with philosophical rigor and
theological awareness.

Comprehension and Analysis

6. In your own words, explain the difference between normative ethics, descriptive
ethics, and metaethics. Give a concrete example of a moral question that belongs to
each category.
7. Explain Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus. What are the seven dimensions along which
consequences are to be measured? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this
approach to moral decision-making?
8. What is Mill’s central objection to Bentham’s utilitarianism? How does his
distinction between higher and lower pleasures respond to this objection? Do you
find his response adequate? Why or why not?
9. Explain the difference between rule consequentialism and act consequentialism.
Which do you find more defensible, and why? What are the strongest objections to
each?
10. Bernard Williams argues that utilitarianism robs persons of their moral integrity.
Reconstruct his “George the Biochemist” argument. Do you find it persuasive?
What does it reveal about the limits of consequentialist thinking?

Theological and Formational Integration

11. The Catholic tradition identifies three fonts of morality: object, intention, and
circumstances. How does consequentialism’s moral framework differ from this
three-font account? Identify a concrete moral case where the difference becomes
decisive.
12. Veritatis Splendor teaches that some acts are intrinsically evil—always and in every
circumstance gravely wrong. Identify two or three acts that the Church teaches are

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 14

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

intrinsically evil and explain why consequentialism cannot account for their
absolute prohibition.
13. Ethical altruism places the good of others at the center of moral life. In what ways
does this resonate with the Christian moral tradition? In what ways does it fall
short of the Christian understanding of love (agapē/caritas)? How does the Catholic
account of ordered love (ordo caritatis) improve on ethical altruism?
14. Proportionalism was rejected by Veritatis Splendor. In your own words, explain
what proportionalism holds and why the Pope rejected it. Why does this debate
matter for the pastoral practice of the sacrament of confession?

Pastoral Application
15. As a future confessor and moral guide, you will encounter situations where people
reason about their moral choices in consequentialist terms (“I did it for the best”;
“The outcome was good, so it must have been right”). How would you respond to
such reasoning pastorally? What does Catholic moral teaching offer that
consequentialism cannot?
16. Can you think of a situation in your own experience or observation where purely
consequentialist reasoning led someone to a morally problematic decision? How
might a natural-law or virtue-ethics framework have arrived at a better outcome?

PART XI — FORMATION REFLECTION

FORMATOR’S NOTE
Consequentialism is arguably the dominant moral framework of contemporary
secular culture. When people reason about ethics in public life—in politics,
business, medicine, and social policy—they most often reason consequentially:
“What produces the best outcomes for the most people?” This is not always
wrong. Consequences genuinely matter. But a purely consequentialist framework
cannot bear the weight of a fully human moral life—because it cannot account for
the inviolable dignity of the person, the absolute prohibition of intrinsic evils, or
the transcendent end to which every human life is ordered. The future priest will
encounter consequentialist reasoning constantly—in the confessional, in parish
life, in public discourse. He must be able to engage it charitably and rigorously,
affirming what is true in it and correcting what is false.

For your prayer journal this week, bring one of the following questions before the
Lord:
• Bentham and Mill asked: what produces the greatest happiness for the greatest
number? Jesus asks: whom do you love? Where does the difference between these
two questions become most significant in the context of my future priestly ministry?
• Ethical altruism calls for self-giving for the good of others. Christianity calls for self-
donation in love. What is the difference between these two calls? How does the
Eucharist—the supreme act of self-donation—illuminate the difference?

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 15

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

• Veritatis Splendor teaches that the moral life is ultimately a response to God’s love:
“God’s law does not reduce, much less do away with, human freedom; rather, it
protects and promotes that freedom” (VS 35). Where in my own moral life am I
tempted to experience God’s law as a constraint on my freedom rather than as a
path into it?

PART XII — KEY TERMS GLOSSARY

Term Definition

Act Consequentialism The moral theory that evaluates each individual action
directly by whether it produces the best available
outcome for all those affected in that specific situation.

Altruism The moral position that the good of others is the proper
end of action. Coined by Auguste Comte; in its ethical
form, holds that the agent’s own interests have no
independent moral weight.

Consequentialism The family of moral theories holding that the rightness of

an action is determined entirely by its consequences—
specifically, by whether it produces the best available
outcome.

Descriptive Ethics The empirical study of how people actually behave in the
moral domain, as distinct from normative prescriptions
about how they ought to behave.

Egoism The view that individuals should always act in their own
self-interest. The position against which Comte defined
altruism.

Hedonic Calculus Bentham’s procedure for measuring the moral weight of

consequences by seven dimensions: intensity, duration,
certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent.

Hedonism The view that pleasure is the highest good. In the strict
utilitarian sense, not mere sensory indulgence but the
maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain for all
affected parties.

Higher Pleasures Mill’s category for pleasures associated with the higher
human faculties—reason, moral feeling, intellectual
inquiry, and spiritual development—which are
qualitatively superior to lower (sensory) pleasures.

Intrinsic Evil Catholic moral term for an act that is gravely wrong by
reason of its object—its very nature—regardless of
intention or consequences. Consequentialism denies the
existence of intrinsic evils.

Metaethics Philosophical investigation of the foundations of ethics

itself: the nature of moral claims, the meaning of moral
terms, and the sources of moral obligation.

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 16

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

Normative Ethics The branch of moral philosophy that investigates the

principles and rules that ought to govern human conduct;
the primary level of ethical theory.

Positive Utility Units Bentham’s unit of measurement for the moral value of
(Hedons) consequences. The action with the highest net hedon
score is the morally obligatory action.

Principle of Utility Bentham’s foundational moral principle: an action is

right if it produces more happiness and less pain than
any available alternative for all those affected.

Proportionalism A contemporary form of consequentialism within Catholic

moral theology, rejected by Veritatis Splendor, which
holds that no act is intrinsically evil—moral evaluation
always requires weighing the proportionate goods and
evils at stake.

Rule Consequentialism The moral theory that evaluates actions by whether they
conform to rules whose general observance would
produce the best overall consequences for society.

Three Fonts of Morality The Catholic moral tradition’s three inseparable

elements for evaluating a human act: the object (what is
done), the intention (why it is done), and the
circumstances (the conditions surrounding the act).

Utilitarianism The most influential form of consequentialism, holding

that the right action is the one that produces the greatest
happiness for the greatest number. Associated with
Bentham and Mill.

PART XIII — BIBLIOGRAPHY AND RECOMMENDED

READING

Primary Source for This Chapter

• Boone, Brian. Ethics 101: From Altruism and Utilitarianism to Bioethics. Avon:
Adams Media, 2017. Chapter 3.

Classical Consequentialist Sources

• Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789).
Ed. J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
• Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism (1863). Ed. George Sher. Indianapolis: Hackett,
2001.
• Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty (1859). Ed. Elizabeth Rapaport. Indianapolis: Hackett,
1978.
• Comte, Auguste. A General View of Positivism (1848). Trans. J.H. Bridges.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Critical Philosophical Sources

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 17

 MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS • Chapter III: Consequentialist Ethics

• Williams, Bernard. “A Critique of Utilitarianism.” In J.J.C. Smart and Bernard

Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1973.
• Moore, G.E. Principia Ethica (1903). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
(Source of the “naturalistic fallacy” critique of Mill.)
• Foot, Philippa. Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1978.

Catholic and Magisterial Sources

• John Paul II. Veritatis Splendor. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993.
Especially nos. 71–83 (on consequentialism and proportionalism) and nos. 48–53 (on
intrinsic evils).
• Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 1749–1761 (the morality of human acts:
object, intention, circumstances); 1700–1706 (dignity of the human person); 2297–
2298 (torture as intrinsically wrong).
• Finnis, John. Moral Absolutes: Tradition, Revision, and Truth. Washington, D.C.:
Catholic University of America Press, 1991.
• Grisez, Germain. “Against Consequentialism.” American Journal of Jurisprudence 23
(1978): 21–72.
• Pinckaers, Servais. The Sources of Christian Ethics. Washington, D.C.: Catholic
University of America Press, 1995. Part III.

✝
PRAYER FOR TRUTH IN MORAL REASONING
Lord, you are the source of all truth and the measure of all goodness.
Protect our minds from the subtle errors that reduce the moral life to
calculation and consequence alone. Grant us the wisdom to know what is
truly good, the courage to defend what cannot be compromised, and the
charity to serve others not merely for the sake of a moral calculus but out
of genuine love for you in them. May we who study your law come to love it,
and may that love make us worthy servants of the people you have
entrusted to our care. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Philosophy Seminar — Seminary Formation Program | Page 18