"The Nature of Principles

After debating Stefan and some from this community about what consequentialism actually is, I got the impression that there's a big misconception about what principles actually are. So let's go through the logic:

1. Definition of Consequentialism:

"Consequentialism is an ethical theory that asserts the moral rightness or wrongness of actions is determined solely by their outcomes or consequences."

That definition is correct. But there's a misconception attached to that, namely that consequentialism contradicts principle based morals. That assumption is incorrect, because principles already are defined by consequences.

2. Definition of Principle:

"A principle is a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of beliefs or behavior or a chain of reasoning."

For example, the moral principle of UPB is that the violation of property rights is bad. That's a judgement, based on the consequence that any acceptance of the violation of property rights will result in the loss of logical consistency, which then will result in the loss of certainty of the law. In other words: The principle is made because we want to prevent any logical inconsistency to justify injustice.

So here's a request: If you disagree with what I've just explained, please provide an example of a moral principle that's not defined by its consequences.

Just one."