@jlou So you are right when you say that we should find less paradoxical theories since I don't want my argument to be seen as a motion only toward more contradictions.

It is more complicated, since the completeness depends on the state of material and knowledge progress.

Indeed, a consequentialist in a world with only the slingshot as a weapon and a consequentialist in a world with the atomic bomb do not contradict themselves the same way.

As I stated in my paper with the germs example.

@jlou So It is like there is a certain "amount" of consequentialism/expressiveness in each theory assessed by its inclination towards self-contradiction

I think the attitude towards paradoxes in this case are also cultural, indeed it is impossible to have a 100% paradox free theory.

However, in the west we try at all cost to avoid them. But in eastern traditions such as Taoism, they try to embrace paradoxes as a fundamental component of the universe.

@jlou I think you understood my argument pretty well.

My resolution implies a sort of middle way between deontology and consequentialism.

We can imagine that there is no clear border between the two but rather a spectrum.

For ex take the rule: "your actions should never cause the death of someone" is this rule deontological or consequentialist ? Pretty hard to tell.

@microglyphics Hi, thank you for your time, I am very pleased to see people read and react to my mork.

I agree with you, in fact this potential counter argument is the thing I hesited the most to include in the paper. The paradox seems to take place for every system attributing predicates in function of future consequences.

However I think that consequentialism is the best example of framework able to do that. The only other examples I can think about are also within consequentialist ethics.

@jlou Thank you very much for your time, I am very pleased.

I share your intuition, I think this paradox and conflict between deontology and consequentialism implies the use of a sort of "middle way" theory of responsability where some cases make perfect sense like Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violonist argument.

I've also seen some videos by Kane B while roaming on the philosophy youtube and I tought he shared similar views about metaetics. I've tried to reach him but he hasn't responded yet.