Here is the NCAA's instant-replay rule for football (Rule 12, Section 1, Article 2):
ARTICLE 2. The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.
This is a good example of deontology in normative ethical theory. A deontologist affirms, while a consequentialist denies, that there are acts that are intrinsically wrong. To a deontologist, certain acts, such as lying, committing adultery, torturing, and killing the innocent, are wrong in and of themselves, independently of their consequences. To a consequentialist, no acts are wrong in and of themselves; if an act such as lying or torturing is wrong, it is because (and only because) it produces less good than some alternative act that is available to the agent.
Another way to state the difference between the theories is that, to a deontologist, there is a presumption against certain types of act. Whether the presumption can be rebutted or overridden depends on whether the deontologist is an absolutist or a moderate. To an absolutist, such as Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), no amount of good can justify acts such as lying. To a moderate, a lie is right if and only if it produces a certain amount of good. How much? That depends on the moderate deontologist's threshold. A moderate deontologist who is close to absolutism would say that only a very great amount of good could justify lying. That is a high threshold. A moderate who is close to consequentialism would say that a much lesser amount of good could justify lying. That is a low threshold. Please note that moderate deontology differs in kind, not merely in degree, from both absolutist deontology and consequentialism.
The replay rule is an example of (or rather, the analogue of) moderate deontology. The rule says (in effect) that there is a presumption in favor of the correctness of the call on the field. In the old days, the call on the field was final, which makes the old days analogous to absolutist deontology. The fact that there is a presumption in favor of the correctness of the call on the field means that the replay rule is not analogous to consequentialism. A consequentialist would accord no presumption of correctness to the call on the field. The replay officials would review the play de novo and would reverse the on-field call if they believed that it was incorrect.
As for how high the threshold is in the replay rule, it's pretty high, for the evidence necessary to reverse the call on the field must be "indisputable" (or "beyond all doubt"). But no matter how high it is, it's not absolutist deontology, for in principle a call can be reversed. An absolutist would accord a conclusive (i.e., unrebuttable) presumption to the call on the field. I hope this post helps you understand the three normative ethical theories: consequentialism, moderate deontology, and absolutist deontology. I will use it in my forthcoming Ethics courses, on the assumption that students are familiar with the instant-replay rule.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 