Consequentialism (Teleology) argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action’s outcome or result. Some consequentialist theories include:
Utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it leads to the most value for the greatest number of people (Maximizes value for all people).
Egoism, the belief that the moral person is the self-interested person, holds that an action is right if it maximizes good for the self.
Situation Ethics, which holds that the correct action to take is the one which creates the most loving result, and that love should always be our goal.

Deontology argues that decisions should be made considering the factors of one’s duties and other’s rights. Some deontological theories include:
Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which roots morality in humanity’s rational capacity and asserts certain inviolable moral laws.
The Contractarianism of John Rawls or Thomas Hobbes, which holds that the moral acts are those that we would all agree to if we were unbiased.
Natural rights theories, such that of John Locke which holds that human beings have absolute, natural rights.

Virtue ethics, which was advocated by Aristotle, focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on the specific actions he or she performs. There has been a significant revival of virtue ethics in the past half-century, through the work of such philosophers as G. E. M. Anscombe, Philippa Foot, and Rosalind Hursthouse.

Intrinsic Value vs. Instrumental Value
A thing is intrinsically good if it is good in itself; if it is good in virtue of its own nature; if it would remain good even if it failed to lead to anything else.
A thing is merely instrumentally good if it is good only for what it leads to; if it is good only “as a means”; if it would no longer be good if it failed to lead to anything else.
Likewise for intrinsic badness and instrumental badness.

What the People Seeds may show is this: that if a woman has taken all reasonable precautions against getting pregnant, she is not responsible for the presence of any fetus that might result from intercourse. This is true, Thomson would say, even when the woman voluntarily indulges in intercourse, knowing of the chance that it will issue in pregnancy

The People Seeds may show this because, in the example, the homeowner is arguably not responsible for the presence of the people-seeds growing in her carpet. This is because she has taken all reasonable precautions against this happening.

To claim that abortion is wrong in cases of failed contraception, Thomson maintains, would commit you the claim that it is wrong for the homeowner to dispose of the people-seeds growing in her carpet.

The Famous Violinist Argument against The Killing-the-Innocent Principle
“You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, ‘Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.’ Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. ‘Tough luck. I agree. but now you’ve got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.’ I imagine you would regard this as outrageous.”

1. If the Killing-the-Innocent Principle is true, then it is morally wrong for you to unplug yourself from the famous violinist.
2. It is not morally wrong for you to unplug yourself from the famous violinist.
3. Therefore, the Killing-the-Innocent Principle is not true.

2. As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

3. Suppose you could throw a switch dropping him through a trapdoor, thus not physically pushing him, would you throw the switch?

4. As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You can divert its path by colliding another trolley into it, but if you do, both will be derailed and go down a hill, across a road, and into a man’s yard. The owner, sleeping in his hammock, will be killed. Should you proceed?

Discussion: What will you do? - If you were the son, will you cut the rope? Why?