Which statement best captures the difference between deontology and utilitarianism when evaluating a police officer's decision to lie to a suspect to obtain a confession?

• A. Deontology evaluates actions based on adherence to moral duties and rules, so lying is generally wrong; utilitarianism weighs outcomes to maximize overall good.
• B. Utilitarianism evaluates actions by moral duties, while deontology weighs consequences.
• C. Deontology emphasizes community safety over truth-telling, while utilitarianism emphasizes absolute truth.
• D. Utilitarianism forbids lying in all cases, while deontology allows it if it leads to a better outcome.

Answer: (A)

In deontology, actions are judged by adherence to moral duties and rules; lying is generally considered wrong because it violates the duty to tell the truth, regardless of what the outcome might be. In utilitarianism, the rightness of an action depends on its consequences, with the aim of maximizing overall good or happiness. So when a police officer lies to a suspect to obtain a confession, deontological ethics would condemn the lie as a violation of a moral rule, while utilitarian ethics would evaluate whether the lie produces greater overall benefit or harm and could justify it if the outcome is net positive. This contrast—duty-driven evaluation versus outcome-driven evaluation—is why the statement that deontology looks to duties and rules and utilitarianism looks to outcomes best captures the difference. The other ideas misstate the emphasis of each theory: utilitarianism is not about moral duties, deontology is not about prioritizing safety over truth, and utilitarianism does not forbid lying in all cases nor does deontology permit it solely because it yields a better outcome.