For example, a deontological ethic might say "you must not drive drunk" under a theory of negligence, and "you must not negotiate with terrorists", but a consequentialist ethic might say "you may drive drunk but not kill someone while driving" and "you should acquiesce to terroristic threats to prevent a murder". And a utilitarian ethic would measure how many lives would be lost under each choice, and perhaps assign variable value to those lives (by age or health or potential future productive output)
Re:Altruism Isn’t Always Attractive
by Throw_Away_6389 on Friday August 30, 2019 @11:34AM
(#20839592)
>The utilitarian framework is so broad that it can be extended to cover all of this, and to cover deontology for that matter ("utility is defined as following the rules of X ethical framework").
But for it to be utilitarianism you have to apply this universally. So making someone follow the ethical framework is just as good as following it yourself (something deontologists generally disagree with). The utilitarian calculus had to give actions that make other people follow the ethical framework a negative utility in such a way that you will always come out only following the ethical framework for yourself.
Consequentialism means (duh) judging your morality based on the consequences of your actions. Utilitarianism means making that judgment in terms of some quantifiable "utility" or "value". But there are other ways to make that judgment, including applying intuition or even applying some kind of deontological deity-given rules.
The utilitarian framework is so broad that it can be extended to cover all of this, and to cover deontology for that matter ("utility is defined as following the rules of X ethical framework").