Pretty much any political or moral philosophy reduced to a single sentence or paragraph becomes silly – if not downright evil – if applied uncritically to any a

Pretty much any political or moral philosophy reduced to a single sentence or paragraph becomes silly – if not downright evil – if applied uncritically to any and all situations. Many people are utilitarian to some degree, and most – including those who might self-identify as utilitarian – would say there are limits to it, too. There are extremists who push the utilitarian limits very far, but those are relatively rare. The same applies to many other philosophies. Many people – on both the left and right – would agree that anyone "should have the freedom as they want, without too much interference of government or other organisations", and are libertarians to some degree. It's only when applied to the extremes without critically considering the trade-offs that it becomes silly, or even evil. The author prefers deontology; that okay, but it's not hard to come up with crazy examples for that, too. If a patient's life can be saved by investing all the hospital's financial resources then deontology, pushed to its extreme, says we should do this. This would be silly, and no doubt the author would agree, because you don't have infinite money and need to think about the patients that come in tomorrow, too. In short, I feel this article is rather myopic, as well as an example of "nut picking" (that is, pick the nuttiest/craziest views and then criticise the entire concept with those views).