Is there a standard reply in deontology? The standard reply of a consequentialist, of course, is the utility function.

I don't know whether there is a standard reply in deontology but the appropriate reply is using a function equivalent to the utility function by a consequentialist.

• Take the concept of the utility function
• Rename it to something suitably impressive (but I'll just go with the bland 'deontological decision function')
• Replace 'utility of this decision' with 'rightness of this decision'.
• A primitive utility function may include a term for 'my bank balance'. A primitive deontological decision function would have a term for "Not telling a lie".

Obviously, the 'deontological decision function' sacrifices the unbreakable criteria. This is appropriate when making a fair comparison between consequentialist and deontological decisions. The utility function sacrifice absolute reliance on one particular desideratum in order to accommodate all the others.

For the sake of completeness I'll iterate what seem to be the only possible approaches that actually allow having multiple unbreakable rules.

1) Only allow unbreakable rules that never contradict each other. This involves making the rules more complex. For example:

• Always rescue puppies.
• Never lie, except if it saves the life of puppies.
• Do not commit adultery unless you are prostituting yourself in order to donate to the (R)SPCA.

Such a system is results in an approximation of the continuous deontological decision function.

2) Just have a single unbreakable meta-rule. For example:

• Always do the most right thing in the deontological decision function. Or,
• Always maximise utility.

These responses amount to "Hack a deontological system with unbreakable rules to work around the spirit of either 'unbreakable' or 'deontological'" and I include them only for completeness. My main point is that a deontological approach can be practically the same as the consequentialist 'utility function' approach.