Video - **"Outcomes vs. Principles: The Great Morality Debate Explained"**

Imagine a world where actions, not intentions, define morality. This is the essence of consequentialism, a theory that evaluates the morality of actions based on their outcomes. But how do we measure the consequences, and who decides what is 'good'? Philosophers like John Stuart Mill argued for utilitarianism, where actions are deemed right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Yet, critics like Immanuel Kant insisted that morality is not about outcomes but about adhering to duty and universal laws. For Kant, lying is always wrong, regardless of the consequences. The debate deepens when we consider real-world dilemmas: Is it justifiable to lie to save a life? Consequentialists may argue yes, focusing on the positive outcome. Deontologists, following Kant, would say no, emphasizing the intrinsic value of truth. Ultimately, the tension between these views forces us to confront our ethical intuitions and question whether morality is an art of navigating outcomes or a science of following principles, leaving us pondering the true nature of ethical decision-making.