You could say the consequentialist solution is to always accept the division of money, which most folks don’t do, so this could make a good trial exercise.
I would strongly recommend against going this direction. Consequentialism is about methodology, not particular results. As soon as you say “the consequentialist always accepts” the clever students will get a funny look on their face, as they try to cost out and compare the immediate gain and long-term loss.
Consider Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, which doesn’t care about the conclusion drawn but does care about the stated justification for the conclusion.
I would strongly recommend against going this direction. Consequentialism is about methodology, not particular results. As soon as you say “the consequentialist always accepts” the clever students will get a funny look on their face, as they try to cost out and compare the immediate gain and long-term loss.
Consider Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, which doesn’t care about the conclusion drawn but does care about the stated justification for the conclusion.