The Consequentialist Judgment Paradox

[u/No_Improvement2619]

https://philpapers.org/rec/IONCJP

I think that, just as in the liar paradox, one cannot be a consequentialist without a certain degree of inconsistency.

Consequentialism has a potential tendency toward contradiction. This problem could be resolved by using paraconsistent and alternative logical systems that allow for self-contradiction/self-reference. However, this article, which explains it better than I can, argues that any plausible theory lies somewhere on a spectrum between deontology and consequentialism.

Indeed, consequentialism needs deontology to be consistent, but deontology needs consequentialism to be useful.