reason to support that action. Deontology, I believe that Consequentialism is a better principle on almost every situation. On the first of these three agent-relative views, it is most commonly asserted that it is our intended ends and intended means that most crucially define our agency. A threshold deontologist holds that deontological norms govern up to a point despite adverse consequences; but when the consequences become so dire that they cross the stipulated threshold, consequentialism takes over (Moore 1997,. . That is, one might ask "Consequences for whom?" Agent-focused or agent-neutral edit A fundamental distinction can be drawn between theories which require that agents act for ends perhaps disconnected from their own interests and drives, and theories which permit that agents act for ends. Whereas consequentialist theories posit that consequences of action should be the primary focus of our thinking about ethics, virtue ethics insists that it is the character rather than the consequences of actions that should be the focal point. "On Measuring the Moral Value of Action" (PDF). More generally, it is counterintuitive to many to think that any of us have a right to be aided. 18 citation needed This position can be described as a reconciliation between act consequentialism in which the morality of an action is determined by that action's effects and rule consequentialism in which moral behavior is derived from following rules that lead to positive outcomes.
Consequentialism and Deontology
10 However, some contemporary utilitarians, such as Peter Singer, are concerned with maximizing the satisfaction of preferences, hence " preference utilitarianism ". Other versions focus on intended ends (motives) alone. S a little old lady being nice that she? Love, honor, obey and cherish until death do you part?, that is one of the most strongest agreements one can make in their life to themselves and to the other person. Moreover, deontologists taking this route need a content to the permissive and obligating norms of deontology that allows them to mimic the outcomes making consequentialism attractive. Moreover, there are some consequentialists who hold that the doing or refraining from doing, of certain kinds of acts are themselves intrinsically valuable states of affairs constitutive of the Good. It is similar to the prima facie duty version of deontology developed to deal with the problem of conflicting duties, yet threshold deontology is usually interpreted with such a high threshold that it more closely mimics the outcomes reached by a pure, absolutist kind. We shall return to these examples later. That is, valuable states of affairs are states of affairs that all agents have reason to achieve without regard to whether such states of affairs are achieved through the exercise of one's own agency or not. This form of utilitarianism holds that what matters is the aggregate me and mine own happiness; the happiness of everyone and not the happiness of any particular person. Reasonable, it states that an action is morally right if and only if it has the best consequence.