Final answer:
Critics argue that consequentialist moral theories, like utilitarianism, can sometimes justify immoral conduct if it leads to the greater good. This approach focuses solely on outcomes, which can conflict with conventional moral intuitions, making actions like lying or killing potentially justifiable if they maximize happiness.
Step-by-step explanation:
Critics of consequentialist moral theories, such as utilitarianism, argue these theories can sometimes condone or even require actions that are conventionally seen as immoral. This criticism is rooted in the fact that consequentialism determines the rightness of an action solely based on its outcomes or consequences. Thus, if an action leads to the greater good, it can be deemed right even if it involves what is typically considered immoral conduct, like lying or killing. For instance, critics suggest that consequentialism could justify extreme measures, like vigilante justice, if it results in a greater net benefit.
However, the opposite can also be true. Consequentialism might require not carrying out certain actions if they do not maximize overall happiness or welfare. This conflicting nature makes consequentialism a complex and often debated concept within normative ethics.
Therefore, it's true that critics maintain consequentialism could condone or require obvious immoral conduct under certain circumstances, particularly when looking at act utilitarianism, which suggests actions are right if they promote the greatest amount of happiness, regardless of moral codes.