G. E. M.

Anscombe, whose previously mentioned paper coined the term "consequentialism",[1] objects to consequentialism on the grounds that it does not provide guidance in what one ought to do, since the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined based on the consequences it produces. Furthermore, she argues that consequentialism since Henry Sidgwick denies that there is any distinction between consequences that are foreseen and those that are intended (see Principle of double effect). Finally, Anscombe objects to the very character of consequentialism itself insofar as it is concerned with determining the rightness and wrongness of actions. She argues that the distinction between right action and wrong action only makes sense within the framework of Judeo-Christian divine lawand, according to Anscombe, Judeo-Christian divine law is incompatible with consequentialism. The DDE seems to require distinguishing between intended means and (foreseeable) mere side effects. A critic of DDE might say that this distinction has no moral significance. Both are foreseen or foreseeable, and so the only relevant difference must be in the causal relationships (where one harm is a harmful means and the other harm is a harmful consequence). However, a difference in causal relationships is not itself of moral significance according to DDE, because DDE admits that disproportionately harmful consequences are morally unacceptable. Therefore there is neither a psychological nor causal difference between intended means and (foreseeable) mere side effects, and the distinction is questionable. On this interpretation of DDE, mere side effects are limited to side effects that are unavoidable, either because they are brought about by every available means to the intended good consequence or because they are the side effects of the choice that minimizes harmful side effects in keeping with the proportionality requirement. As such, DDE tells us that agents are morally obligated to choose, from among alternative means, that which achieves the intended aim with the minimum of foreseeable harmful effects, for only the minimum harm can be counted as mere side effects. Any foreseeable harmful effects beyond this level are intended side effects for which the agent is morally responsible. For example, if your cannot earn a living without owning an automobile, you are morally obligated to own the automobile that produces the least pollution, the lowest risk of accidents, and so on for the class of automobiles that you can afford. If you could afford to own a car that would pollute less than the one you drive, then the additional pollution that you generate cannot be dismissed as a mere side effect of your transportation Buddhism links karma directly to the motives behind an action. Motivation usually makes the difference between "good" and "bad" actions; but included in the motivation is also the aspect of ignorance such that a well-intended action from an ignorant mind can subsequently be interpreted as a "bad" action in the sense that it creates unpleasant results for the "actor".

Consequentialism is a moral theory which states that the consequences of a persons actions are the true basis for judging the morality of that action, whether an action is right or wrong. A variation is motive consequentialism. The consequences which arise from a choice are entailed in the motive(s) to choose that action over other actions. A critique of consequentialism finds three problematic areas: consequentialism does not say what a person ought to do, there is no distinction between foreseen consequences and those that are intended, and the concept of right or wrong only makes sense within the confines of Judeo-Christian divine law. The second criticism centers on intended consequences and those that are foreseen. For example, I purchase an automobile. The purchase is necessary in order for me to go to work. Work is essential in the society I live in for my existence. Yet the purchase of the vehicle means that I also add to the pollution contaminating my immediate environment and harming others in my community. Consequentialism seems to point to making a choice that achieves the intended consequences at the same time of minimizing harmful side effects. Those negative consequences beyond those desired minimized side effects are intended. The Buddhist concept of karma seems to imply that if a person is makes a choice out of ignorance, even if well intended, is a bad decision. Conversely, if a person makes a choice out of full awareness, that decision is a good decision. In short, a person is bound by the full consequences of the choice made, regardless of whether the decision was undertaken with full knowledge of all the consequences or not. This would imply that all choices made by the majority of people are bad decisions. To follow Socrates example of withholding a dagger from the deranged owner would be a bad decision. Is this necessarily so?