system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Is it inconsistent to apply both utilitarian and deontological frameworks when thinking about ethics, depending on the situation?

Example : A person who believes that killing any innocent person is immoral is inconsistent if they also believe that having some collateral damage during a bombardment is justified if this brings prosperity latter on?
I am also thinking that in terms of politics and policies: A healthcare system might be considered good if it provides free and decent care, even if that means that due to budget and workflow reasons some small percentage of people might be misdiagnosed, but if a specific doctors misdiagnoses a patient of theirs (especially due to budget and workflow reasons) this is considered not only legally wrong but ethically as well.
gpt
So in some cases it seems like Deontological and Consequentialist concerns can lead to contradictory duties or obligations. But some applied ethicists think that what is happening is that both theories give rise to worthwhile and legitimate ethical concerns and ethical truths, and it is our job to parse those out in borderline cases. Some ethicists think that many moral theories have merits that are legitimate, and we should consider all of them.

Many, though, like Singer believe that a single moral framework has the most explanatory power and can be used to the exclusion of other moral frameworks. Thus, any moral intuition that a Kantian might have is either false or explained and validated by a utilitarian framework, for example.

Still some others believe that an amalgamation of many major moral theories serve as the validating foundation for ethics. Such as Parfit who seems to argue in *On What Matters* that kantianism, utilitariansism, and contractarianism are all, in a qualified sense, compatible to some extent. They are “climbing the same mountain”— (there are various ways of reading what this means itself though).