Yetter-Chappel is a very smart person, likely much smarter than myself, but this seems like such a strange argument to me. P2) is basically just the assertion "Consequentialism is true" put into different words, noone who isn't already predisposed to accept consequentialism should ever accept it.
"If we assume that deontological reasoning is false, then deontology has paradoxical results" isn't a paradox of deontology, but just a question-begging argument.
Yetter-Chappel is a very smart person, likely much smarter than myself, but this seems like such a strange argument to me. P2) is basically just the assertion "Consequentialism is true" put into different words, noone who isn't already predisposed to accept consequentialism should ever accept it.
"If we assume that deontological reasoning is false, then deontology has paradoxical results" isn't a paradox of deontology, but just a question-begging argument.