Do outcomes justify anything — or are some things
just wrong?
Two titans of moral philosophy. One question:
how should you live?
Moral philosophy has produced hundreds of frameworks — but two dominate introductory ethics. They start from completely different premises and often reach opposite conclusions.
Judge every action by its results. The right thing to do is whatever produces the best overall consequences for everyone affected. Morality is fundamentally forward-looking — what will this action bring about?
Utilitarianism, the most famous version, holds that we should maximize total happiness and minimize total pain — not just for ourselves, but for all affected beings.
Gronholz, Shane. "Consequentialism and Utilitarianism." 1000-Word Philosophy, 2014. "Consequentialists typically argue that we are obligated to do whatever action has the best overall consequences."Some actions are inherently right or wrong — regardless of their consequences. Morality is about fulfilling duties and respecting persons, not calculating outcomes. You can't use someone as a mere tool, even for a good cause.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) developed the most influential deontological framework, grounded in the Categorical Imperative: act only on principles you could will to become universal laws.
Chapman, Andrew. "Deontology: Kantian Ethics." 1000-Word Philosophy, 2014. "Deontology is a type of moral theory that denies that morality is solely about consequences."| Dimension | Consequentialism | Deontology (Kant) |
|---|---|---|
| Core Question | What produces the best outcomes? | What duties do I have regardless of outcome? |
| What Makes an Act Right? | Its good consequences (outcomes) | Conformity to moral duty / rational principle |
| Is Lying Ever OK? | Yes — if it produces better outcomes | No — lying violates the Categorical Imperative |
| Famous Thought Experiment | "Kill 1 to save 5" can be obligatory | Cannot push the giant man (he's used as a means) |
| Key Criticism | Can justify atrocities if numbers work out | Can demand absurd rigidity (tell truth to murderer) |
| Notable Thinkers | Bentham, J.S. Mill, Peter Singer | Immanuel Kant, W.D. Ross, Christine Korsgaard |
Designed by philosopher Philippa Foot (1967) and extended by Judith Jarvis Thomson, trolley problems reveal deep tensions between our moral intuitions. Choose your action — then see how each theory would evaluate it.
A runaway trolley is heading toward 5 people tied to the track. You can pull a lever to divert it to a side track — where 1 person is tied. You have seconds to decide. What does each ethical theory say?
Same trolley, same 5 people — but now there's no lever. You're on a bridge above the track. Next to you stands a very large man whose body, if pushed, would stop the trolley. He would die, but 5 would be saved.
Kant's answer: Pushing the man uses him as a mere means — a sack of bones to stop a trolley. This violates the Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative: you must always treat persons as ends in themselves, never merely as instruments. Pulling the lever, by contrast, redirects a threat; the one person's death is a tragic side-effect, not the method.
Consequentialist answer: Logically, push. Five lives outweigh one. The means of saving them shouldn't change the arithmetic of outcomes.
Read the scenario. Pick the response that fits the theory named. Build your moral philosophy muscles.
Tap any concept to expand its full explanation, drawn directly from your course readings.
7 questions. No time limit. Prove you can think like a philosopher — or a utilitarian, at least.
Citations formatted per Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition (Notes–Bibliography style), as outlined in the Purdue University On-Campus Writing Lab guide. Authors' names inverted in bibliography; titles of major works italicized; shorter works in quotation marks.