<P> One major difference between these two approaches is the agent's responsibility . Positive consequentialism demands that we bring about good states of affairs, whereas negative consequentialism requires that we avoid bad ones . Stronger versions of negative consequentialism will require active intervention to prevent bad and ameliorate existing harm . In weaker versions, simple forbearance from acts tending to harm others is sufficient . An example of this is the Slippery Slope Argument, which encourages others to avoid a specified act on the grounds that it may ultimately lead to undesirable consequences . </P> <P> Often "negative" consequentialist theories assert that reducing suffering is more important than increasing pleasure . Karl Popper, for example, claimed "...from the moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure ...". (While Popper is not a consequentialist per se, this is taken as a classic statement of negative utilitarianism .) When considering a theory of justice, negative consequentialists may use a statewide or global - reaching principle: the reduction of suffering (for the disadvantaged) is more valuable than increased pleasure (for the affluent or luxurious). </P> <Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This section does not cite any sources . Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed . (September 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> </Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This section does not cite any sources . Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed . (September 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr>

Who developed the idea that means justify the end