Consequentialism is a moral theory based on the principle that an action is morally right if the results of those actions maximize good and minimize evil. In contrast, non-consequentialism arises from the principle that certain actions are intrinsically good or bad. Because these theories can draw the same or varied conclusions in morally ambiguous situations, the conclusions themselves, while important, cannot be taken as evidence of the theory's value. Therefore, since we can only judge the value of a theory by its premises, I will argue that consequentialism derives from a strong premise, while non-consequentialism is based on an unfounded assertion. Before examining specific situations, it is important to fully understand the positions of non-consequentialism and consequentialism. Non-consequentialism suggests that certain actions are inherently wrong and should always be prohibited, regardless of situational consequences. These prohibitions take the form of uncompromising rules, such as “don’t steal,” “don’t lie,” “don’t break promises,” and “don’t murder innocent people.” I will call this set of rules principles. Consequentialism, by definition, rejects the idea that these principles are intrinsically right. The action that the consequentialist considers “good” is one whose outcome will maximize good and minimize evil. A judicious consequentialist would consider not only immediate or obvious outcomes, but also broad or long-term consequences such as the future well-being of society. The disparity between these moral theories means that what is considered the right action varies in different situations, like Bernard's. "William's 'Jim and the Indians' Thought Experiment". A non-c...... group... middle of paper, because it aims to maximize good. For these reasons, consequentialism draws stronger conclusions in morally controversial situations and is the better realist theory. Works Cited Dawkins, R. (2006). The divine illusion. Great Britain: Transworld Publishers. Rachels, J. (1999). "The challenge of cultural relativism". Elements of moral philosophy. McGraw-Hill, pp. 29-30Singer, P (1994). Ethics. Oxford University Press, p. 121Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2011). Consequentialism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/consequentialism/Williams, B. (1973) “A Critique of Utilitarianism” in Smart & Williams, “Utilitarianism : for and against', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, retrieved from http://py111.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/jim-and-the-indians/ accessed 10/4/2012