His ultimate answer is cast in terms of consequentialist moral reasoning, by which what counts as determinative in the moral argument is the outcome. (firstthings.com)
Consequentialist approaches say we should aim to maximize the greatest good for the greatest number, even if this means causing some harm — like killing one person to save five. (sciencedaily.com)
The path to a productive discussion about ABS, it turns out, is one based only on consequentialist reasoning supported by quantifiable evidence, but which rejects any comparison of either the risks or the benefits of ABS with those of other systems. (slaw.ca)