h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Doing this will increase the total happiness in the world, so doing this is good. "

What is described here is not Consequentialism. That is the general belief we should judge actions as being moral or immoral based on the consequences. It is that general.

A specific type of Consequentialism is Utilitarianism, people like Jeremy Bentham and JS Mill, who introduce happiness the desired consequence. Granted this is one of the most popular forms of Consequentialism, but is more specific.

Because of this the arguments:
-"some people don't set happiness as their major goal in life"
-"it's not easy to measure happiness"
are not applicable to Consequentialism as a whole, just Utilitarianism.

Blub-blub

Hence this paragraph:

'Consequentialism says that we should act according to the consequences. Generally the idea is that we judge the consequences and try to maximize happiness, but we might equally try to maximize freedom, or minimize suffering.'

It's still muddled, of course. On my reading, the line in italics is simply exemplificatory, and the error is to treat Utilitarisnism as what is 'generally' the form consequentialism takes, with the third paragraph using it to move through the problem of multiple possible goals to a mention of preference utilitarisnism, and the fourth finishing off with criticisms of consequentialism in general.

Yeah, it's a bit muddled. I think name-checking Utilitarianism at some point would help. Ho hum, can't edit it now.

Really, all Consequentialism does is change the problem from deciding what actions are ethically best, to deciding which of several possible states the world could be in are ethically best. Answering one question with another, really.

Talking of answering questions: could you describe some popular non-Utilitarian Consequentialist theories?

I take it 'popular' rules out anti-Utilitarianism.

I think the 'right to life' can override Utilitarian sympathies; there seems to be ample support for acting in order to preserve life instead of acting to maximise happiness. Of course some of the justifications are in terms of long-term/general happiness, but there's also life as an intrinsic good to be preserved. There's perhaps something similar in conservationism: acting to preserve when this doesn't necessarily maximise happiness, perhaps on the grounds that species are intrinsically valuable, or on the basis of a sort of principle of plentitude.

- And, some are 'rarely' happy with all means and abilities available... And a 'right' to life are also the things of which 'constitutes' the elements which make life - like the bull 'The Four - Major Food Groups'...

It's not an exact science folks... And couple that with the sheeple here, the warriors are forced to curtsy, and the rest have become Government or their snitches.

I hate it.