Discover published sets by community

In deontology, particularly Kant's philosophy, good will is considered the only unequivocally good thing, with moral worth independent of its consequences. Consequentialism evaluates the goodness based on the consequences of having that will.

Deontology often includes a discussion of rights and corresponding duties, holding that individuals have certain rights and others have duties to respect these rights. Consequentialism focuses on the maximization of good consequences and may override individual rights if doing so leads to a better overall outcome.

Consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism, uses the principle of utility which suggests that an action is right if it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Deontology would argue that the morality of an action is independent of its consequences.

Deontology, especially in Kantian ethics, postulates that humans should never be used merely as a means to an end due to their intrinsic value. Consequentialism may allow the use of individuals as means to achieve a beneficial outcome.

Deontological ethics is rule-based and judges actions against a set of moral rules. Unlike consequentialism, it does not consider the result of following these rules as a factor in their moral assessment.

Centrally featured in deontological ethics, particularly Kant's formulation, which asserts that one should act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Consequentialism is less concerned with universal maxims and more with the outcomes of actions.

Deontology is action-centered, meaning it focuses on the inherent morality of actions themselves, rather than their consequences. Consequentialism is outcome-centered, focusing on the results of actions.

Kantian deontology argues that actions must be done from the motive of duty to have moral worth, while personal inclinations should not be the motivating factor. In contrast, consequentialism values actions that lead to positive outcomes regardless of the motive.

Deontological ethics argues for moral absolutism, where principles or rules are universally binding. Consequentialism, by contrast, may allow rules to be broken if the outcome is sufficiently beneficial.

The principle of double effect suggests that performing a good action may be permissible even if it causes a bad effect, provided the intent is good — a concept found more in deontological reasoning. Consequentialism is more concerned with the balance of good over bad effects.

Consequentialism holds that a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome or consequence, thus it can be said to justify the means by the end. Deontology, on the other hand, claims that certain actions are inherently wrong or right, regardless of their outcomes.

Deontological ethics may prescribe partiality to certain individuals like family, friends, or people in need, whereas consequentialism tends to enforce impartiality, claiming that each individual's welfare should count equally when considering an action.

Consequentialism relies on agent-neutral reasons, where the right action is determined independent of the individual's personal desires or circumstances. Deontology, however, considers agent-relative obligations, asserting that there are moral duties specific to individuals.