Welfarism

In philosophical ethics, welfarism is a form of consequentialism. Like all forms of consequentialism, welfarism is based on the premise that actions, policies, and/or rules should be evaluated on the basis of their consequences. Welfarism is the view that the morally significant consequences are impacts on human (or animal) welfare. There are many different understandings of human welfare, but the term "welfarism" is usually associated with the economic conception of welfare. Economists usually think of individual welfare in terms of utility functions, a perspective in which social welfare can be conceived as an aggregation of individual utilities or utility functions.
"Welfarist" views have been especially influential in the law and economics movement. Steven Shavell and Louis Kaplow have argued in an influential book, "Fairness versus Welfare" that welfare should be the exclusive criteria by which legal analysts evaluate legal policy choices.
Penal welfarism.
Penal welfarism is a theory in the study of criminal justice which holds that prisoners should have the right and the positive motivation to gain opportunities for advancement within the criminal justice system.
Outcome utilitarianism, welfarism, and sum-ranking.
Amartya Sen (1979) provides the following two definitions:
"Welfarism: The judgment of the relative goodness of alternative states of affairs must be based exclusively on, and taken as an increasing function of, the respective collections of individual utilities in these states."
"Sum-ranking: One collection of individual utilities is at least as good as another if and only if it has at least as large a sum total."
Sen makes the statement: "It is easily checked that welfarism and sum-ranking together are exactly equivalent to outcome utilitarianism." He then proceeds to criticize outcome utilitarianism by criticizing each of its two components: first sum-ranking, and then welfarism.