Deontological vs. Consequentialist

Ethical arguments, unlike factual ones, can be divided in two broad categories: deontological or consequentialist ones. Deontological arguments center around values, principles or axioms (or their breaching). Consequentialist claims differ in that they are focused on outcomes, measured in happiness, utility or harm induced. The distinction between these two argumentative modes can be summarized as "the end justifies the means" (consequentialist) vs. "some means are objectionable no matter what" (deontological).

While this distinction remains a practical way to divide moral claims, one can argue that consequentialist claims are ultimately deontological in that they presuppose that the maximization of some outcome variable is a moral principle. Similarly, it can be argued that that deontological claims are ultimately consequentialists, since the implementation of a deontological ethic in some society is an outcome, or consequence in and of itself. Thus this distinction, while important and observable in how people approach moral arguments, is not fundamental.

Examples of deontological claims and their supporting principle

• Prophylaxis is wrong because it trades the death of those who will suffer side effects from the prophylactic treatment for those who would have died from the disease being prevented. An example of this argument can be used to argue against vaccines.

Principle invoked: Human actions should not be committed with the intent of trading some deaths for some other deaths.

Examples of consequentialist claims and their outcome variable

• Vaccines are good because the number of deaths reduced by the protection they afford is greater than the people killed by them.

Outcome variable: Number of deaths caused.