Verified by 
The consequences of our actions are important. They matter. But if the utilitarian is right, then consequences are all that matters. Is this correct?
The main principle of utilitarian moral theory, the principle of utility, states that the right action is the one that produces the most overall happiness. John Stuart Mill adapted Jeremy Bentham's theory, and stated that happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. However, Mill clarified that there are higher and lower pleasures. The higher pleasures are the pleasures of the intellect, and the lower pleasures are the pleasures of the senses. The upshot is that morally speaking, it is not just the quantity of pleasure that matters to the utilitarian, but the quality as well.
On the positive side, if we applied this theory to our lives we might become more unselfish, and many of the problems we face might be alleviated. This is because everyone's happiness counts the same. Prejudice and discrimination have no place here, because each individual counts the same when calculating the happiness produced by our actions. Mill himself fought for women's rights, against slavery, and for fair labor practices, which is consistent with his utilitarian convictions.
However, there are some weaknesses in this theory. Utilitarianism's primary weakness has to do with justice. A standard objection to utilitarianism is that it could require us to violate the standards of justice. For example, imagine that you are a judge in a small town. Someone has committed a crime, and there has been some social unrest resulting in injuries, violent conflict, and some rioting. As the judge, you know that if you sentence an innocent man to death, the town will be calmed and peace restored. If you set him free, even more unrest will erupt, with more harm coming to the town and its people. Utilitarianism seems to require punishing the innocent in certain circumstances, such as these.
It is wrong to punish an innocent person, because it violates his rights and is unjust. But for the utilitarian, all that matters is the net gain of happiness. If the happiness of the many is increased enough, it can justify making one (or a few) miserable in service of the rest. Utilitarianism requires that one commit unjust actions in certain situations, and because of this it is fundamentally flawed. Some things ought never to be done, regardless of the positive consequences that may ensue.
Utilitarian moral reasoning is prevalent in our political and moral dialogue. Consequences have a place, and must be considered, but we must also think about other moral principles, the relevant virtues, human rights, and what our choices and judgments say about us. Consequences matter, but they are not all that matter. Morality is about more than the consequences of our actions.
I'm on Twitter.
