Although there is more tale to tell, the disvalue of false belief can be part of a consequentialist story about why it is morally wrong to break promises. XIII seemed to think that the principle of utility follows from very general principles of rationality and universalizability.
For such deontologists, what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm. Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped.
Having more information about what is valuable Consequentialist vs deontological one in a better position to reap value. Opponents of utilitarianism find this claim implausible, but it is not obvious that their counter-utilitarian intuitions are reliable or well-grounded Murphychs.
You do not have to do one on the day of your presentation.
If deontological norms are so broad in content as to cover all Consequentialist vs deontological foreseeings, omittings, and allowings, then good consequences such as a net saving of innocent lives are ineligible to justify them.
It is less clear whether that claim by itself is sufficient to make a theory consequentialist. Examples of deontological theories The most famous deontological theory is that advanced by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. When considering a theory of justice, negative consequentialists may use a statewide or global-reaching principle: Still, each new person will have enough pleasure and other goods that the total net utility will increase with the population.
When a welfarist theory of value is combined with the other elements of classic utilitarianism, the resulting theory can be called welfarist consequentialism. One might also adopt a beauty consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. Other opponents object that not only pleasures are intrinsically valuable, because other things are valuable independently of whether they lead to pleasure or avoid pain.
Teleological theories are often discussed in opposition to deontological ethical theories, which hold that acts themselves are inherently good or evil, regardless of the consequences of acts. Such criticisms of the agent-centered view of deontology drive most who accept their force away from deontology entirely and to some form of consequentialism.
Of course, such theories are implausible. Still, if the definition of consequentialism becomes too broad, it might seem to lose force. The bottom line is that if deontology has intuitive advantages over consequentialism, it is far from obvious whether those advantages can be captured by moving to indirect consequentialism, even if there is a version of indirect consequentialism that could avoid dire consequences problem that bedevils deontological theories.
First, duties of differential stringency can be weighed against one another if there is conflict between them, so that a conflict-resolving, overall duty becomes possible if duties can be more or less stringent.
· Reconciling Consequentialism with Deontology: "consequentialism" vs. "non-consequentialism" and "deontology" vs. "teleology". On each of these divides, there is a simple necessary answer to which side must be right: any tenable moral theory must be both consequentialist and deontological.
Liberals and conservatives are each on ultimedescente.com Classic utilitarianism is consequentialist as opposed to deontological because of what it denies. It denies that moral rightness depends directly on anything other than consequences, such as whether the agent promised in the past to do the act ultimedescente.com://ultimedescente.com · Deontology vs Teleology.
Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves questions about morality and the perception of good and evil, of right and wrong, of justice, virtue, and ultimedescente.com · Ethics Theories- Utilitarianism Vs.
Deontological Ethics There are two major ethics theories that attempt to specify and justify moral rules and principles: utilitarianism and deontological ethics.
Utilitarianism (also called consequentialism) is a moral [ ]ultimedescente.com · 义务论(deontological approach) VS 目的论（teleological approach）或后果论 (consequentialist) 苏格拉底的论述认为 该做一件事，因为他的本身是“对的” 区分 该做某 ultimedescente.com · A consequentialist, however, might argue that virtue is preferred because it produces the best outcomes.
In fact, beneath the surface of modern intellectual discussion on virtue ethics is a tension between these two ultimedescente.com://ultimedescente.comDownload