I further claim that deontologists, if they accept such axioms (which you claim they do), degenerate into consequentialists given sufficient reflection.
My main objection is that this further claim wasn’t really argued in the original point. It was simply assumed—and it’s just too controversial a claim to assume. The net effect of your assumption was an inflationary use of the term—if consequentialist means what you said, all the interesting disputants in moral philosophy are consequentialists, whether they realize it or not.
It might be the case that your proposition is correct, and asserted non-consequentialists are just confused. I was objecting to assuming this when it was irrelevant to your broader point about the advantages of the label “awesome” in discussing moral reasoning. The overall point you were trying to make is equally insightful whether your further assertion is true or not.
My main objection is that this further claim wasn’t really argued in the original point. It was simply assumed—and it’s just too controversial a claim to assume. The net effect of your assumption was an inflationary use of the term—if consequentialist means what you said, all the interesting disputants in moral philosophy are consequentialists, whether they realize it or not.
It might be the case that your proposition is correct, and asserted non-consequentialists are just confused. I was objecting to assuming this when it was irrelevant to your broader point about the advantages of the label “awesome” in discussing moral reasoning. The overall point you were trying to make is equally insightful whether your further assertion is true or not.