“Consequentialism” senerio

The consequentialist argues that the rightness or the wrongness of an act is best determined by looking at the outcome of the act. If the outcome brings about more goodness or happiness than any other act, then the act is the right thing to do. 

Now consider this scenario: Tom has a hobby: he likes to spy on his neighbor, Ms. Smith, when she undresses. If ask, Tom would insist his hobby is innocent; Ms. Smith doesnt know he is spying, and his hobby gives him much pleasure. Indeed, he claims, it makes him a more relaxed person, and so a better husband, parent, worker, and citizen. No one is hurt, he insists, and so there is no harm done.

Assume no one Ms. Smith included ever learns of Toms spying. Is Tom wrong to act this way? Why or why not?

Many consequentialists will argue that if there is no real harm being done — especially harm that outweighs the pleasure Tom experiences — then there is nothing wrong with what Tom is doing. Think about how one might criticize this line of thinking, and whether you agree in the end that Tom’s behavior is permissible. Give some reasons for your conclusion, powerful reasons that would appeal to the neutral, objective observer — one interested only in the truth.