1. The view that a decision has to be made with a high level of consequence. 2. The view that a decision has to be made with a high level of utility. 3. The view that a decision has to be made with a high level of both.
The three approaches are not mutually exclusive. However, each of our three views has a different goal, and the goal of utilitarianism is to make the decision with the highest level of utility and consequences, whereas the goal of consequentialism is to make the decision with the highest level of both. Of course, this may seem counter-intuitive, and it is for a reason. The key is to realize that the highest level of both is the highest level of utility.
Utilitarianism is a philosophy which has as its basic principle that the individual should be made to choose the action which maximizes their utility. In utilitarianism, the individuals is made to feel that they are making a choice between the actions which maximize their utility. Consequentialism is a philosophy which says that the individual should be made to choose the action which maximizes their consequentialism (the utility they would have if the actions were not done).
Consequentialism is often referred to as the “utility theory of value.” Utility is defined as “an appropriate function of a given set of elements,” such as “the product of money and happiness.” Utilitarianism is often used as a synonym for consequentialism in the popular press.
Utilitarianism is one way to look at a given action, which is a way of thinking about how to act. It is not the only way to look at the same action, and not the only way to act.
Categorizing actions as either utilitarian or consequential is a common way to describe what we are, but it is also a convenient way to talk about the actions themselves. This is not the same thing as categorizing actions as good or bad, which are two different things. It is a way of talking about what we are, but it is not the same thing as categorizing actions as good or bad.
You could consider a utilitarian action to be a action whose purpose is to maximize the good of the situation, and a consequential action to be an action whose purpose is to maximize the bad of the situation. Both utilitarian and consequential actions can be good or bad, but the difference is that a consequential action is a bad action, and we won’t be in any real trouble if we are. It is a bad action, but it is a bad action because we cannot avoid it.
The point, as many of you know, is that sometimes our actions are not our own choosing. Sometimes a job, a relationship, a friend, a business opportunity, or even a chance encounter is set up by a third party that is not us. We are affected by the actions of others. You can think of this as an example of the “third person” in the title of this paper.
The relationship between utilitarianism and consequentialism is often said to be the relationship between freedom and responsibility. It’s a question of whether or not we are free to act with a certain amount of force, or whether or not we are responsible for the actions we take. The answer is very close to the utilitarian perspective.
While it’s still a philosophical question, I would say that the answer to this question of whether we can act with some level of force or whether we are responsible for our actions depends on the level of the decision. If we’re deciding to do something, we will act in a certain way. If we’re being forced to do something, we have the option of not acting.