A deontologist is deciding whether to lie to save an innocent person's life. Which response best reflects the deontological approach?
ALie, because saving a life produces the best overall outcome
BRefuse to lie, because some actions are intrinsically wrong regardless of consequences
CLie, because duty to protect the innocent overrides the duty not to lie in every case
DEvaluate based on which choice maximizes total well-being
Deontology holds that some actions — like lying — are intrinsically wrong, meaning their wrongness does not depend on outcomes. Options A and D are consequentialist: they evaluate the act by its results. Option C is outcome-weighted reasoning dressed in duty language. The defining mark of deontological thinking is that agent-relative duties constrain action even when violating them would produce better consequences — the ends do not justify the means.
Question 2 True / False
Deontological ethics forbids most actions that cause harm to other people.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Deontology prohibits actions that violate rights or treat persons as mere means — not all actions that cause harm. A surgeon causes pain but does not violate rights; a judge imprisons people but acts within legitimate authority; a journalist exposing wrongdoing may harm reputations but respects persons as rational agents. The relevant constraint is on the type of action (rights violation, using someone purely instrumentally), not on whether harm results.
Question 3 Short Answer
What is the fundamental structural difference between deontological and consequentialist moral reasoning?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Consequentialism evaluates actions by their outcomes: an action is right if it produces the best consequences overall. Deontology holds that some actions are intrinsically right or wrong regardless of consequences: certain duties, rules, or rights constrain what we may do even when violating them would produce better outcomes. The key distinction is that deontology uses agent-relative constraints — rules about what you may do — not an agent-neutral evaluation of states of the world.
This distinction is clearest in thought experiments like lying to a murderer. A consequentialist may require the lie (it saves life); a strict Kantian deontologist forbids it (lying violates a categorical duty). Understanding the structural difference — outcome-evaluation versus intrinsic-rightness — is the core of comparing ethical frameworks.