Depending on the consequence, the event was defined as either a postponement (later the same day) or a cancellation (another day).
A direct consequentialist about acts holds that the moral qualities of an act depend on the consequences of that act.
In contrast, an indirect consequentialist holds that the moral qualities of something depend on the consequences of something else.
The most common indirect consequentialism is rule consequentialism, which makes the moral rightness of an act depend on the consequences of a rule.
Thus, a direct consequentialist about motives holds that the moral qualities of a motive depend on the consequences of that motive.
The criteria for individual action depend on the consequences of prior decision-making and the quality of actions rather than the established rules and historical traditions (Gilding 2010).
One indirect version of consequentialism is motive consequentialism, which claims that the moral qualities of an act depend on the consequences of the motive of that act (compare Adams 1976 and Sverdlik 2011).
A direct consequentialist about virtues holds that the moral qualities of a character trait (such as whether or not it is a moral virtue) depend on the consequences of that trait (Driver 2001a, Hurka 2001, Jamieson 2005, Bradley 2005).
Through examples it is shown how these reliabilities depend on the consequences of entrance into limit states and on the marginal initial cost of the reliability and how earthquake design spectra must differ radically from those for fixed return periods.
Introducing the distinction between the error of rejecting a true hypothesis (type I error) and accepting a false hypothesis (type II error), they argued that it depends on the consequences of the error to decide whether it is more important to avoid rejecting a true hypothesis or accepting a false one.
