A
consequential moral code is one that relies on the consequences of one's actions in order to define the morality of said actions.
Pros:
- It makes immediate sense at the surface level for those immediately skeptical of the concept of morality
- Post-hoc evaluation of a decision has evidence to demonstrate it
- If done properly, the most "good" will apply to most people and the least "bad" will be done to the fewest people
Cons:
- It requires competence to do properly
- Well meaning individuals could be seen as "immoral" due to unforeseen consequences of their actions
- Terrible things can be done in the effort to achieve a greater end goal ("Utopia is just one purge away, comrade!")
A
deontological code is one that is more "rule-based" in that intent and outcomes are not what determine the morality of an action, the action itself does.
Pros:
- Easy to tell "right" from "wrong"
- No competence required; only adherence to the code
- No "do bad thing for greater good"
Cons:
- A bad code leads to a terrible society
- Is inflexible and dogmatic
- Disregards the results of an action ("this person will die if you don't do this 'bad' thing, but at least you weren't the one to directly cause his death so it's better that you don't do the 'bad' thing")
Of course, I doubt very many people are 100% for either of these frameworks. It's more a spectrum if anything. Nietzsche's "master/slave" morality is basically the idea that which code you choose depends on how much control you have over other people's behavior: A
master (one who has this control) should act consequentially whereas a
slave (one who is controlled) should act deontologically. But I think it's fair to say most everyone tends to operate in some weird and varying hybrid of both regardless of social status.
