Final Answer:
A deontologist would likely struggle with justifying the killing of a person about to commit a terrorist act, even if it meant saving the lives of many others. Deontological ethics, rooted in principles and rules, often prohibits actions like killing, as it focuses on the inherent morality of an act rather than its consequences.
Step-by-step explanation:
Deontology, as a moral framework, holds that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their outcomes. In the case of killing a person about to commit a terrorist act to save others, a deontologist would face a moral dilemma.
The prohibition against killing is a fundamental principle in deontological ethics. From a deontological standpoint, the act of killing is intrinsically wrong, and this ethical stance remains steadfast, irrespective of the potential greater good it might bring about.
Moreover, deontologists prioritize the consistency of moral principles. If killing is deemed morally wrong, exceptions become problematic. The deontological perspective asserts that individuals should adhere to universalizable moral rules.
Making an exception for killing in specific situations challenges the universality of the ethical principle against taking a life. A deontologist may argue that finding alternative means, such as apprehending the terrorist, aligns better with their ethical framework.
In conclusion, while consequentialist ethical theories might permit killing for the greater good, a deontologist would likely find it challenging to justify such an action.
The adherence to moral principles, particularly the prohibition against killing, remains a core tenet of deontological ethics, even in the face of complex moral dilemmas.