would point out that if a negligent manufacturer ends up killing fifty-five people in a year and a vicious murderer ends up killing exactly one, and if we could only stop one of them, we would probably try to stop the negligent manufacturer.
and consequentialists) affix different ideas to the terms employed in the controversy.
would reject that view.
sense, the deontologists
who build in a catastrophe exception are often
would ever properly conclude that the marginal deterrence
These called themselves deontologists
. For them the case was simple: Mrs.
So, for an absolute deontologist
, instructions about what to do in the face of uncertainty can only be pragmatic.
That is a burden that falls on the deontologist
, and there is no comparable burden on the welfarist.
might well conclude that the snail darter is worth thousands of jobs, but she should not object to enunciating her objection with numbers.
Katz's point is about bad acts and (ultimately) good results, not about bad means being justified by a good end (an unlikely view for a committed deontologist
By contrast, Tom Regan, a contemporary deontologist
, argues that animals do have significant moral status, and that almost all animal research is immoral.
opponent of the deontologist
as is the more familiar utilitarian