Pluralist vs Conventional utilitarians

pluralists believe that how the Good is distributed among persons conventional utilitarians merely add or average each person's share of the

Good to achieve the Good's maximization.

There seems to be no space for the consequentialist in which to show partiality i.e. one’s own family, friends etc.

Consequentialism is also criticized for what it seemingly permits. It seemingly demands (and thus, of course, permits) that in certain circumstances innocents be killed, beaten, lied to, or deprived of material goods to produce greater benefits for others.

Deontology:In contrast to consequentialist theories, deontological theories judge the morality of choices by criteria different from the states of affairs those choices bring about.

In deontology, the Right is said to have priority over the Good.

Certain actions can be right even though not maximizing of good consequences, for the rightness of such actions consists in their instantiating certain norms (here, of permission and not of obligation).

Such actions are permitted, not just in the weak sense that there is no obligation not to do them, but also in the strong sense that one is permitted to do them even though they are productive of less good consequences than their alternatives (Moore 2008). Such strongly permitted actions include actions one is obligated to do, but (importantly) also included are actions one is not obligated to do.

Duty-based ethics teaches that some acts are right or wrong because of the sorts of things they are, and people have a duty to act accordingly, regardless of the good or bad consequences that may be produced.

So, for example, the philosopher Kant thought that it would be wrong to tell a lie in order to save a friend from a murderer.

Duty Based ethics:

Certainty:

1. Conseq: Future is unpredictable.

2. Duty-based ethics don't suffer from this problem because they are concerned with the action itself

Agent-centred vs Victim-cantered (or “patient-centred”) theories