Can you explain the philosophical differences between utilitarianism and deontology? I’ve encountered both terms in my ethics class, and while I understand the basics, I’m struggling to differentiate between the two in more complex scenarios. Could you also give examples where they might lead to opposite moral conclusions?
Sure! Utilitarianism and deontology are indeed two distinct branches of ethical thought.

Utilitarianism, associated with philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, holds that the morality of an act is determined by its outcome. In other words, it's a form of consequentialism. The most ethical act is the one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. For example, a utilitarian might argue it's ethical to break a law if it leads to an overall increase in happiness.

On the other hand, deontology (from the Greek deon, "duty") asserts that the morality of an act is intrinsic, not dependent on its outcome. This approach is mostly associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant. Deontologists believe that some acts are morally obligatory, regardless of their outcomes. For example, a deontologist might argue it's never ethical to lie or break a law, even if doing so might lead to good outcomes.

For an example where they conflict: Imagine a situation where lying could prevent harm to others. A deontologist might argue that lying is inherently wrong and therefore unacceptable, whereas a utilitarian would argue that if the lie results in greater happiness and less harm for a greater number of people, it is morally acceptable.