Deontology vs Consequentialism
I was writing an assignment where I had to answer a question from a deontological perspective. I've since spiralled into beleiving deontology doesn't actually exist.
pls refute if you can:
The idea of any act being inherently good or bad is unfounded in any context, even legal or religious. Ultimately everything is conequentialist as everything is good or bad because you are working for or against what someone or something commanded. Murder is not inherently bad, it is bad because it goes against the law, or against what god said or against what you yourself said. Either way, good and bad can only be determined when an act is tied to a consequence. Therefore Deontology can't really exist.
pls refute if you can:
The idea of any act being inherently good or bad is unfounded in any context, even legal or religious. Ultimately everything is conequentialist as everything is good or bad because you are working for or against what someone or something commanded. Murder is not inherently bad, it is bad because it goes against the law, or against what god said or against what you yourself said. Either way, good and bad can only be determined when an act is tied to a consequence. Therefore Deontology can't really exist.
Comments (3)
E.g. harvesting one healthy person’s organs to save five dying people is good according to consequentialism, but not otherwise.
I am not sure why you think this fits into consequentialism. You don't offer much of an argument, but your last sentence hints at a traditional deontological duty theory, as it contains a paraphrase of the well-known categorization of ethical duties: duties to God, duties to oneself, and duties to others.