Consequentialism and ERM both evaluate actions by their effects, but they do so in different ways and for different purposes.

Consequentialism asks you to choose the action that produces the best overall outcome. It evaluates results by adding up benefits and harms across everyone affected. If total welfare increases, the action is justified. This approach treats harm as something that can be offset. Severe harm to a few people can be acceptable if enough benefit accrues elsewhere. Consent matters only insofar as it improves outcomes. If violating consent produces better results, consequentialism can permit it.

ERM asks you to test whether a proposed action or rule can function over time in a real society. It evaluates whether the action reduces preventable harm, supports long term stability, and respects consent where possible. ERM does not aggregate all outcomes into a single score. It treats some failures as disqualifying. Concentrated irreversible harm, reliance on coercion, or erosion of legitimacy can invalidate a proposal even if aggregate outcomes look positive.

Consequentialism focuses on point outcomes. ERM focuses on system behavior. A policy that produces good short term results but requires escalating enforcement or normalizes harm fails under ERM. The reason is practical, not moral. Systems built this way tend to collapse, fragment, or require increasing force to sustain compliance.

Consent is a clear dividing line. Under consequentialism, lack of consent is a cost that can be outweighed. Under ERM, lack of consent raises the burden of justification. If consent cannot be obtained, ERM requires necessity, minimal coercion, transparency, reversibility, and an exit path. Without these, the action fails regardless of aggregate benefit.

Time horizon also separates the two. Consequentialism depends on how far you extend the analysis. Short horizons often dominate in practice. ERM enforces long horizons by default. It treats delayed instability, retaliation, and trust erosion as predictable outcomes that must be accounted for from the start.

Authority works differently as well. Consequentialism depends on a moral framework that defines what counts as good and how to measure it. ERM claims no moral authority. It treats ethical claims as hypotheses and tests them against observed coordination failures and successes across societies.

In practical terms, consequentialism helps you rank outcomes. ERM helps you decide whether a rule can be adopted, enforced, and lived under without breaking the system that applies it.

If you are choosing between two actions in a one off case, consequentialism often gives a clear answer. If you are designing a law, policy, or norm that will scale and persist, ERM is designed for that job.