All of Jake_Nebel's Comments + Replies

I think your definition of consequentialism (and deontology) is too broad because it makes some contractarian theories consequentialist. In "Equality," Nagel argues that the rightness of an act is determined by the acceptability of its consequences for those to whom they are most unacceptable. This is similar to Rawls's view that inequalities are morally permissible if they result in a net-benefit to the most disadvantaged members of society. These views are definitely deontological (and self-labeled as such), and since consequentialism and deont... (read more)

1Alicorn
I haven't made a close study of Rawls, but what I know inclines me towards an interpretation under which the difference principle is a prediction about what agents would agree to behind the veil of ignorance, and only via their agreeing upon it does it gain moral force. I don't think they are necessarily either of these things. You can have considerable overlap - even doppelgangers blur the lines - and you're neglecting virtue ethics, which doesn't have a clear allegiance with either. This neglects satisficing theories, and (depending on how strict you mean this to be) theories that talk about things other than acts or rules. Defining deontology in terms of consequentialism is something I'd like to avoid.