What is better an ethics of consequence or ethics of duty?

Answer 1

Neither is universally better -- they just approach things from different prespectives.

An ethics of duty is based on initial assumptions and agreements and responsibilities -- what you said you would do -- regardless of the consequences. And for many things, since the ends do not always justify the means, that is better. And you have the advantage of knowing whether something is ethical when you start the process.

An ethics of consequence deals just with the results -- which in some situations is more important -- but also opens up to abuses based on an 'ends justify the means' argument -- and you also don't know whether something will be ethical until after you've done it.

Answer 2

Ethics of Duty, Ethics of Consequence create an atmosphere of resentment.

Answer 3

if people had better ethics of duty, the ethics of consequence wouldn't be needed, now would it.. So Duty is better..