Without adopting some flavor of consequentialism, we can never have a rational common ground to say that your deontological standards are “better” than mine, and everyone leaves with their opinions unchanged.
With consequentialist ethics you instead wind up arguing over what your terminal values should be, which tends to be equally effective.
But you have the additional recourse of evidence as to likely consequences, which is often revealed to be the source of disagreements that seem fundamental to a deontologist.
With consequentialist ethics you instead wind up arguing over what your terminal values should be, which tends to be equally effective.
But you have the additional recourse of evidence as to likely consequences, which is often revealed to be the source of disagreements that seem fundamental to a deontologist.