How do consequentialism and deontology approach issues of social justice and human rights? Provide examples of how each theory could be used to address ethical dilemmas related to discrimination, inequality, and oppression.

Consequentialism and deontology provide different frameworks for approaching issues of social justice and human rights. Consequentialists would focus on the outcomes of actions and seek to maximize the overall happiness or well-being of society. Deontologists, on the other hand, would prioritize the duty to respect individual rights and justice, even if it does not lead to the best overall consequences.

For example, consider the issue of discrimination in hiring practices. A consequentialist would argue that it is morally permissible to discriminate if it leads to the most qualified and effective workforce, and if it can increase overall happiness or well-being. However, a deontologist would argue that such discrimination violates the moral duty to respect individuals as moral agents with equal rights and dignity.

Similarly, in issues related to inequality and oppression, consequentialists would argue that reducing inequality or oppression would lead to greater overall happiness or well-being for society as a whole. Deontologists, on the other hand, would argue that such inequalities and oppressions are violations of individual rights and dignity and must be addressed regardless of the consequences.

In addition, deontologists would argue for the protection of human rights as a fundamental duty, whereas consequentialists may see human rights as a means to an end. Deontologists argue that these rights are inherent and inviolable, and that respecting them is a duty owed to all individuals. Consequentialists, while not denying the importance of human rights, would be more likely to weigh their importance against other considerations such as overall social welfare.

Overall, while both consequentialism and deontology can be used to address issues of social justice and human rights, their different priorities and frameworks for moral decision-making can lead to different approaches and conclusions.