Consequentialist ethics judges actions by their outcomes—good results make good actions. Deontological ethics judges actions by their conformity to rules—some acts are wrong regardless of consequences. Most people use both frameworks situationally: lying to spare feelings seems justified by outcomes, while torturing innocents seems wrong even if it prevents greater suffering. Moral philosophers debate whether this inconsistency represents practical wisdom or confused thinking.
Based on the passage, it can be inferred that
consequentialism and deontology always produce identical moral judgments
ordinary moral reasoning may not conform to any single systematic ethical theory
philosophers universally agree that situational ethics is confused
lying is always morally acceptable
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. Most people use both frameworks inconsistently.
- Context clues: "Most people use both frameworks situationally"—different theories in different cases.
- Meaning: Ordinary moral thinking doesn't follow one systematic approach.
- Verify: The switch between consequentialist and deontological reasoning shows mixed frameworks.
💡 Strategy: When people's actual reasoning doesn't fit a single theory, infer that real reasoning may be pluralistic.
Choice A is incorrect because the frameworks produce different judgments in the examples. Choice C is incorrect because philosophers "debate"—some may see it as practical wisdom. Choice D is incorrect because lying "seems justified" in one case, not universally.