consequentialism, deontology

Question 1

consequentialism

Answer 1

good prior to right

too permissive

Question 2

deontology

Answer 2

right is prior to good

too restrictive

Question 3

transplant case, trolley case, difference

Answer 3

kill healthy patient for organs to save 5, compared to runaway trolley (push lever to move trolley so it runs over worker but not 5 workers). Diff is that in 1st, taking purposefully w intent to kill and using the person, in 2nd, the death is a byproduct of a good act (no intent to kill, person is not being used- it wouldn’t matter if they were there or not).

Question 4

to avoid probs w consequentialism

Answer 4

“does that mean?” leads to rule consequantilism, softer version. Doesn’t allow for EVEYRTHING so long as cons. are good, but chooses rules that generally lead to good consequences (don’t kill generally leads to good cons) but sometimes you may break the rules.

Question 5

to avoid probs w deontology

Answer 5

“but what if?” leads to threshold deontology. When there are SUCH enormous bad consequences, you may break the rules (even though it’s inconsistent reasoning)

Question 6

modern example(s) of debate between cons. and deon.

Answer 6

“good” dictator who can quickly make large scale changes that will likely prevent or even reverse climate change, BUT takes away ppls rights of autonomy and freedom. Or, duty to not torture others to get information compared to possible abililty to get important info that will help/save many lives.