What is the difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism?

Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that
maximizes utility. Utility is defined in various ways, but is usually related to the well-being of
sentient entities. Classically, Jeremy Bentham defined utility as the aggregate pleasure after
deducting suffering of all involved in any action. John Stuart Mill expanded this concept of
utility to include not only the quantity, but quality of pleasure. Others have rejected that pleasure
has positive value and have advocated negative utilitarianism, which defines utility only in terms
of suffering. In contrast to this hedonistic view, some define utility with relation to preference
satisfaction whereas others believe that a range of values can be included in its definition.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, which states that the consequences of any action are
the only standard of right and wrong. This view can be contrasted or combined with virtue ethics
which holds virtue as a moral good. Some believe that one's intentions are also ethically
important. Utilitarianism is distinctly different from other forms of consequentialism such as
egoism as it considers all interests equally. Proponents of utilitarianism have been split about
whether individual acts should conform to utility (act utilitarianism) or whether agents should
conform to ethical rules (rule utilitarianism). Utilitarian additionally remain split about whether
utility should be calculated as an aggregate (total utilitarianism) or an average (average
utilitarianism).
Historically, hedonism can be traced back to Aristippus and Epicurus who viewed happiness as
the only good. Bentham is, however, credited with founding utilitarianism when he wrote An
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Since Bentham, prominent utilitarian
have included John Stuart Mill, Henry Sedgwick, R.M. Hare and Peter Singer. The philosophy
has been applied to modern issues including the suffering of non-human animals. Specifically,
utilitarianism has been applied to the ethics of raising animals for food and the ethics of wild
animal suffering. Effective altruism is a philosophy aimed at improving the world through
evidence based means, which has been supported on utilitarian grounds.
Opponents of utilitarianism have criticized it for many reasons. Some have said that
utilitarianism ignores justice while others contend that utilitarianism is impractical. Specific
criticisms have included the mere addition paradox and the utility monster. Others have said that

pleasure is not commensurable across people with varying identities and thus the idea of
aggregating utility is impossible.
Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of
one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that
conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting)
is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In an extreme form, the idea of
consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the English saying, "the ends justify the meaning
that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.
Consequentialism is usually contrasted with deontological ethics (or deontology), in that
deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the character of the
behavior itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct. It is also contrasted with virtue ethics,
which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the act
or omission itself, and pragmatic ethics which treats morality like science: advancing socially
over the course of many lifetimes, such that any moral criterion is subject to revision.
Consequentialist theories differ in how they define moral goods.
Some argue that consequentialist and deontological theories are not necessarily mutually
exclusive. For example, T. M. Scanlon advances the idea that human rights, which are commonly
considered a "deontological" concept, can only be justified with reference to the consequences of
having those rights. Similarly, Robert Nozick argues for a theory that is mostly consequentialist,
but incorporates inviolable "side-constraints" which restrict the sort of actions agents are
permitted to do.