Maybe we have in mind different sorts of deontology (or are just using the term differently). I have in mind "common-sense deontology" of Foot, Thomson, Kamm etc. And while I agree they have questions to answer vis-a-vis uncertainty (ones they've spent time addressing), I don't see why their distinguishing between doing and allowing give…
Maybe we have in mind different sorts of deontology (or are just using the term differently). I have in mind "common-sense deontology" of Foot, Thomson, Kamm etc. And while I agree they have questions to answer vis-a-vis uncertainty (ones they've spent time addressing), I don't see why their distinguishing between doing and allowing gives rise to those questions
As for beneifcentrism...I would think most commonsense deontologists accept an obligation to help those that we can (when it's not too hard for us to do so). They just think it has limits (certainly temporal limits). After all, it's commonsense that we have such obligations (and that they have limits) and the project is to build a theory around that data.
Maybe we have in mind different sorts of deontology (or are just using the term differently). I have in mind "common-sense deontology" of Foot, Thomson, Kamm etc. And while I agree they have questions to answer vis-a-vis uncertainty (ones they've spent time addressing), I don't see why their distinguishing between doing and allowing gives rise to those questions
As for beneifcentrism...I would think most commonsense deontologists accept an obligation to help those that we can (when it's not too hard for us to do so). They just think it has limits (certainly temporal limits). After all, it's commonsense that we have such obligations (and that they have limits) and the project is to build a theory around that data.