Depends on the context. You are driving with a passenger in a safe manner and a car runs a stop sign and hits you, killing your passenger. You have done nothing wrong. You confide in a close friend an embarrassing fact about a third person, expecting your friend to not reveal your comments, which they do to the third person and that third person commits suicide. You have done something wrong.

You confide in a close friend an embarrassing fact about a third person, expecting your friend to not reveal your comments, which they do to the third person and that third person commits suicide. You have done something wrong. — jgill

After which you never tell them again. I had a similar experience. I once worked on the beach of a beautiful isle. Putting up beds and all that. I confided a personal deed to the boy in the kitchen who told my nonna... Damned, she got angry! I learned my lesson. Dunno if that (me telling) counts as a wrong action though... Maybe if it was a tale about someone else.

A fantastic question! See how, my dear OP, consequentialism requires the ability to prognosticate and prognosticate accurately the effects of our actions in the now and here. We have to be soothsayers to be consequentialists. Is it a coincidence that consequentialism involves math (the felcific calculus), mathematician being synonymous with astrologer just 4/5 centuries ago?

I like math, I should be a consequentialist, oui?

Generally, the problem which you raise is a problem which may be underlying the philosophy of consequentialism. Acts are seen as morally good from the basis of what the repercussions will be and it is hard to know the exact consequences of acts because there are so many unknown variables in life. So, it may be that a sense of duty needs to come into the picture, but it may be hard to see duty without some thought of outcomes.

So, it may be that the ethics of consequentialism needs to be balanced with uncertainty, or what Nassim Taleb refers to as the ' Black Swan' aspects of life. Predicting what happen has limitations insofar as there are irregularities and some awareness of this makes morality less clear. It may be about being able to think of consequences but retain awareness that it is not possible to find clear consequential solutions, making ethics a puzzle of uncertainties.

According to consequentialists, have you done something wrong if your actions have terrible consequences that you could not have foreseen? Explain the options consequentialists have for addressing this issue. — Vely Fernandez

Depends on act or rule utilitarians. An act utilitarian strongly commits to the thesis that the moral value of an action is determined by its future consequences. While a rule utilitarian takes the same thesis, he also postulates several heuristics ("rules") for how to optimally maximize the value of future consequences in the majority of cases. This is meant to address the epistemic problems often thrown at consequentialism.

Sounds like an essay question. You know it would be easier to do some research yourself and think about what the answer might be than try and piece together an answer from the responses of people here, most of whom will know far less than you do about the matter. I mean, how will you discern a plausible answer from total and utter confused nonsense? You won't be able to - and thus your essay answer will be appalling.

Sounds like an essay question. — Bartricks

For once I agree. I was about to post the same thing.

As to the question itself: We are told that the consequences were unforeseen, but not being told what the actions were we do not know if the action was irresponsible, that is, that there was a reasonable expectation that the consequences would be bad.

If, for example, a vaccine is developed and after rigorous testing of efficacy and safety it is approved but some small percentage of patients develop serious and possibly life-threatening side-effects, it is clear that the consequences for that population are bad. But if the majority of people who are vaccinated benefit we cannot simply say that administering the vaccine is bad. Further, if protocols are in place and have been followed those who developed and administered the vaccine should not be held morally responsible.

As with other moral theories, consequentialism has its limits. No moral theory yields unequivocally or apodictically correct answers.

No moral theory yields unequivocally or apodictically correct answers. — Fooloso4

All moral theories yield apodictically correct answers for the ones holding them.

If you think that if an act having bad consequence is a bad act, then the act is apodictically bad.

You need to look up the definition of apodictic. Holding a moral theory in no way makes it apodictic.

For those holding them it's undisputably true.

Again, you need to look up the definition of apodictic.

From OL:

"clearly established or beyond dispute"

Good. Now you have to figure out what that means. Hint: it in not enough that one person or group of people to regard it as beyond dispute

Now you have to figure out what that means — Fooloso4

You can look that up!

I would rather not insult you so I am not going to continue with an exchange that has taken a turn to the absurd.

I would rather not insult you — Fooloso4

I rather won't rather insult you either. It's very simple. People holding a moral won't argue about that moral with you. Which means the moral is beyond dispute for them.

An apodictic proposition is necessarily true and can be demonstrated to be true. Not arguing about it does not make it beyond dispute, it simply means you won't dispute it. If I claim that a circle must have a diameter that equals its circumference that does not mean it is beyond dispute if I won't argue about it.

it simply means you won't dispute it. — Fooloso4

Exactly. Beyond dispute.

So, if I say that you are wrong about everything and won't dispute it then it follows that it is beyond dispute that you are wrong about everything. Exactly. Beyond dispute.

So, if I say that you are wrong about everything and won't dispute it then it follows that it is beyond dispute that you are wrong about everything. — Fooloso4

For you yes. For me no.

All moral theories yield apodictically correct answers for the ones holding them. — EugeneW

Do you mean people assume their answers/worldviews are correct or that everyone's individual truth is correct?

For you yes. For me no. — EugeneW

You still do not understand what apodictic means:

"clearly established or beyond dispute" — EugeneW

Not just for me or you but:

necessarily true and can be demonstrated to be true. — Fooloso4

Good luck with this one Tom.