Consequentialism is a valid normative ethical system

Just to clarify, the agreed definition is as follows: 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I shall begin with the destructive before I move onto the constructive. I shall be doing this in a list-like manner with C meaning claim, or contention, and R meaning rebuttal. #1 C: When the consequences of an act have value, the value of the consequences are relevant to the act itself. R: The only value one could possibly assign to consequences are non-consequential in nature. Thus, the very basis on which the entire system of Consequentialism is base dis intrinsic, indicating that the basis for all morality would be intrinsic under the theory of your version of Consequentialism. #2 C: Lying might be considered a bad act, but if the act of lying leads to saving the lives of several people, then the act itself is good (assuming the lives of those people has more value than the value of the alternative consequences). R: First of all, the values can't be judged consequentially, they can only be intrinsically assigned values. Secondly, there is no guarantee that the liar ever intended to do 'good' with their act and so we are revering the malicious for the fact that they unintentionally happened to do some 'good' while at heart they will always seek to damage in the future. This is glorifying the accidental hero over the consistently dedicated hero that happens to slip up. If we revere the accidental hero with a psychopathic brain and the accidental screw-up with a loyal and benevolent brain, we will end up giving power and influence to those who will then abuse it most efficiently rather than use it with care. This will result in negative consequences undoubtedly and thus, it is consequentially incorrect to support Consequentialist normative ethics as an accepted moral system within any society. #3 C: Since this is assuming there is good in this world, there is always an amount of said good, calculatable or otherwise. R: This should be incorrect and impossible within the Consequentialist framework of ethics. #4 C: If the only thing that had value was mattresses, for example, then the destruction of a mattress would have positive value if said destruction lead to more mattresses. R: What on earth is the value of mattresses being based on. Intrinsic value being assigned to a mattress contradicts the very premise on which Consequentialism is based. #5 C: That's because in a world where the mattress was not destroyed, there would be less good than in the world with more mattresses. Situations with less good are objectively worse. R: But the very concept of 'good' being base don something other than objectively verifiable consequences indicates that the Consequentialist is deciding which set of consequence sis more desirable via non-Consequential reasoning to begin with. If the very basis of Consequentialism is non-Consequential then this indicates that the root of all morality is intrinsic after all and that Consequentialism is merely a facade may mistake for being the true source of morality and decision-making. #6 C: All of the prominent alternatives rely on consequentialist theories. Virtue ethics dictate that morals revolve around the character of people rather than specific actions, but what that means is that value is held within character, so the best actions always maximize that value. R: The actions do not maximize the value of the character, the character's 'value' leads to the actions. In conclusion, your case is dismissed. Now I shall move onto my constructive. First of all, no e is ever the result of one action alone or event in itself, there are always extraneous variables at play that can alter what was intended to occur by the perpetrator to make the unintended result render more 'good' or 'bad' than it consequentially would have been had these other unpredictable variable snot flipped at unintended times. For instance baking a non-surprise cake for your grandmother that you'd told her you'd bring her that day and a power-cut occurring in your house that means you can't have access to an oven renders the grandmother less satisfied and everyone else is more miserable unless by magic a rival for the cake-baking turns up and happens to be happy that you weren't there to shove your cake down your grandmother's throat because now they're the one she admires for having made one. Thus, even thought you intended to do good, you'll now be labelled as a consequential villain which is blatantly going to lead to furthermore issues as your relationship with your grandmother loosens and you begin to feel lonelier and more of a failure due to this occurrence, the list could go on and on. Ignorance is not malice and confusing the two will have dastardly repercussions. In summary, the consequences of Consequentialism render it as morally flawed according to its very own method of measuring validity.