Sure, but the point is that one concern will probably collapse into the other. For a pure consequentialist, question 2 is either irrelevant or answered by question 1, and for question 1 you will end up in a bit of a circle where “because it maximizes overall net utility” is the only possible answer, with maybe an “obviously” down the line.
Well, yes. But we’re not talking about pure consequentialists. It’s obvious that hybrid deontology-consequentialism is inconsistent with pure consequentialism; it’s also beside the point.
Deontological constraints are seldom sufficient to determine right action. When they’re not it seems perfectly natural to try to fill the neither-prohibited-nor-obligatory middle ground with something that looks pretty much like consequentialism.
Can’t both of these questions be asked of pure consequentialists?
Sure, but the point is that one concern will probably collapse into the other. For a pure consequentialist, question 2 is either irrelevant or answered by question 1, and for question 1 you will end up in a bit of a circle where “because it maximizes overall net utility” is the only possible answer, with maybe an “obviously” down the line.
Well, yes. But we’re not talking about pure consequentialists. It’s obvious that hybrid deontology-consequentialism is inconsistent with pure consequentialism; it’s also beside the point.
Deontological constraints are seldom sufficient to determine right action. When they’re not it seems perfectly natural to try to fill the neither-prohibited-nor-obligatory middle ground with something that looks pretty much like consequentialism.