Non-consequentialism

Non-consequentialism is an ethical framework asserting that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is not solely determined by its consequences. It emphasizes the inherent nature of actions, the adherence to moral duties and principles, or the intentions behind the actions, rather than the outcomes they produce. Non-consequentialist theories often focus on concepts like moral obligations, rights, and justice, positing that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong regardless of their effects. This perspective challenges the consequentialist viewpoint, which prioritizes maximizing overall good or minimizing harm. Non-consequentialist ethics often incorporate principles like the Golden Rule, universalizability, and treating others as ends in themselves, separate from the actions' repercussions.

Non-consequentialism meaning with examples

• A devoutly religious individual might refuse to lie, even if it could save someone's life, because they believe lying is inherently wrong according to their religious doctrine. This exemplifies non-consequentialism as the act itself (lying) is deemed immoral, regardless of the potential beneficial outcome. The emphasis is on adhering to a divine commandment, not the consequences of truth-telling or deception.
• A human rights advocate might vehemently oppose torture under any circumstances, arguing that it violates fundamental human rights and is inherently immoral. They maintain this position even if torture could potentially extract information to prevent a large-scale catastrophe. This demonstrates a non-consequentialist approach because the act itself is seen as intrinsically wrong, surpassing any potential positive effects.
• A judge might sentence a criminal to prison for a crime, even if doing so creates hardships for the criminal's family and potentially increases their likelihood of reoffending. The judge adheres to the principles of justice and the punishment deemed appropriate by the law, illustrating a non-consequentialist stance. The focus is on upholding legal and moral obligations, not solely the overall societal impact.
• A person might choose to help a stranger in need, even if it means they will be late for an important appointment or experience some personal inconvenience. They feel compelled to help, viewing the act of kindness as inherently good, irrespective of its minor negative effects on themselves. This decision is made based on duty or principle rather than calculating potential benefits or harms.
• A soldier may refuse to take a certain action in war if doing so violates their deeply held moral code. They refuse the action even if doing so puts their own life at risk, illustrating that the act itself violates their moral duties and cannot be condoned.