deontological responses … arise from some sort of error, or poor thinking.
I don’t understand the complaint. Deontology is simple: you just apply the fixed rules. If in a particular situation the fixed rules lead to an undesirable outcome, that’s too bad but that’s how deontology works—it is explicitly NOT consequentialism—and that has nothing do with “poor thinking”.
...deontological responses (DRs) seem to be equivalent to responses that demonstrate cognitive biases in non-moral situations. For example, the omission bias favors harms of omission over less harmful harms caused by acts, in both moral and non-moral situations (Ritov & Baron, 1990). This similarity suggests that the DRs arise from some sort of error, or poor thinking. Much evidence indicates that the cognitive processes supporting moral and non-moral judgments are largely the same (e.g., Greene, 2007). If this is true, the question arises of what sort of thinking is involved, and when it occurs.
I don’t understand the complaint. Deontology is simple: you just apply the fixed rules. If in a particular situation the fixed rules lead to an undesirable outcome, that’s too bad but that’s how deontology works—it is explicitly NOT consequentialism—and that has nothing do with “poor thinking”.
or as generalissimus Stalin would say: “No man, no problem”