For those that know me personally, or have been reading this blog long enough, you probably know how much of a philosophy nerd I am. And being the self proclaimed nerd, I am prone to thinking about the weirdest things anyone could ever imagine.
However, I'd like some input on Consequentialism, more commonly known in the phrase "The ends justify the means," verses that of Deontology, where every action must be morally right.
When using the phrase, "The ends justify the means," a good end for example would be a world without AIDs or HIV; however, is the end still considered right or good if the means to reach that end were to quarantine and shut off those infected from the world?
In Deontology, every single action you are involved in must be morally right, so in a hypothetical situation, if a scared girl running from a maniacle psychopath with a knife comes running to you for proctection, you have to hide her for protection, but if the psychopath comes to you and asks you if you know where the girl is, you can't lie. You have to tell the truth because lying is considered morally wrong. The girl ends up not being saved, however the rules of Deontology state that you have done nothing wrong.
For either side, there are many radical hypothetical situations you can fit in to show all the flaws of each theory, however is one more right than the other?
Is it better to have a good ending or outcome, even if the ways you have to reach that good is bad? Or is it better to treat each action as an end, where everything you do has to be morally right? What if your version of right is my version of wrong?
Just something for your brain to munch on for a while during the time I'm gone for my trip :)