Having to make decisions based on the general welfare of people or its capacity to bring about positive change is justifiable under all circumstances.
Consequentialism has been accepted by many realists, who understand that some actions, even if considered wrong with regard to moral rules, may have positive outcomes, benefitting a large number of people, which then justifies the act. The argument presented is to validate the superiority of Consequentialism over other ethical theories in practice.
It is important to defend the ethical theory of Consequentialism which can be the key to maintaining stability in the society, without forcing upon them a set of rules to accept as moral standards, giving them more realistic options, and allowing them to decide upon the moral implications of their actions based on its outcome. It requires to be accepted as a moral theory and not an incessant practical casuistry as alleged by opponents of Consequentialism.
Standard rules that define moral values are not practically feasible, as many decision making situations may be indefinable in terms of morality. Standard Consequentialism is a theory of decision. It attempts to identify, from a given set of options, the option which is right that an agent should take. The right option to any decision is the option that maximizes probable value or that which will have the best probable consequences, which directly aims at common welfare, which should be the underlying goal of an ethical theory such as in Consequentialism. The function which determines what is the right decision is also the function which ought to be applied in decision-making: it serves at once to evaluate options, and to select them. (Pettit) Consequentialism promotes a more realistic and futuristic approach to define moral standards, implying that, a certain act may be justified by its