The Definition of Consequentialism: A Survey

Abstract

There are different meanings associated with consequentialism and teleology. This causes confusion, and sometimes results in discussions based on misunderstandings rather than on substantial disagreements. To clarify this, we created a survey on the definitions of ‘consequentialism’ and ‘teleology’, which we sent to specialists in consequentialism. We broke down the different meanings of consequentialism and teleology into four component parts: Outcome-Dependence, Value-Dependence, Maximization, and Agent-Neutrality. Combining these components in different ways we distinguished six definitions, all of which are represented in the philosophical literature. We asked the respondents which definition is best for consequentialism and for teleology. The most popular definition of consequentialism was the one which accepted value-dependence, but not maximization and agent-neutrality. We therefore recommend the use of this meaning to avoid misunderstandings. The results for teleology were more problematic, with several respondents claiming they never use the term, or indicating that it is confusing.

Why be a relational egalitarian?

“…For example, people who pursue the maximization of certain good things cannot accept non-consequentialist account, while those holding a broader conception of the goodness of the outcome that occurs may accept it. For a survey on the definition of consequentialism, see Horta et al (2022). 55 Anderson (2012, pp.…”

Why are rural communities reluctant to adopt the standard version of SROI?

“…127 SROI is commonly considered to be based on utilitarianism (Bockarjova et al, 2022& Maier et al, 2014. Among its variations, one type of utilitarianism is consequentialism (Horta et al, 2022). In addition to the standard version of SROI, other versions of SROI are also advocated.…”