Skip to content
January 7, 2015 / compassioninpolitics

Five ways to resolve deonteological or rule-based conflicts in public policy and ethics

There are non-consequentialists that have built in conditionals:
1) non-consequentialism
2) conflicts resolved by utilitarianism

I think the more common response might be:
1) non-consequentialism
2) except when existential threats are involved (perhaps society-wide threats)

In terms of politics, our response is often:
1) non-consequentialism
2) conflicts resolved by representative democracy

Additionally, In politics we also use rule-utilitarianism probably more than act utilitarianism IMHO.  Rule utilitarianism arguably integrates both.

There are also 3 pronged ethicists who want.  Nye has made this argument I believe–although its more of an assertion–but probably grounded on that notion that it integrates the major ideas about ethics in the Western ethical tradition:
1) Intent
2) Means
3) Ends
and compare based on all three.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: