# Is there a rational argument for Deontology? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2023, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-rational-argument-for-deontology/984590 "2023-05-25T17:29:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 38
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2023, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-rational-argument-for-deontology/984590/38 "2023-07-09T05:36:01Z")
The problem with the trolley problem (one of many problems, but I think the central one) is it attempts to take morality out of reality. It also ignores the process by which decisions are made by encouraging people to “solve” the problem in a vacuum. But the closer you get to injecting real world nuance into something like the trolley problem, the less of a “gotcha” it becomes for utilitarianism. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > But if admit that there’s _something_ wrong with killing somebody else to save 3 people, in other words _something_ that must be weighed as part of your decision, then you are not a pure consequentialist. False. A consequentialist—a rule utilitarian if you prefer—can easily justify declining to kill 1 to save 3 if, for example, extrapolating that kind of moral decision making process for application to humanity as a whole would be bad for human well-being. Just because you look at the implications beyond the event in a vacuum doesn’t mean you’re not a pure consequentialist. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-rational-argument-for-deontology/984590)._