 Phillips thinks there are good reasons to jettison the duty of non-maleficence. Ross suggests the duty of non-maleficence in some way constrains what we are permitted to do to promote general good. It is not permissible, for example, to kill one person to prevent two other people from being killed. Phillips thinks this leaves Ross susceptible to the paradox of deontology, which says it is paradoxical to hold someone’s being harmed provides a consideration against, say, torturing, but not a consideration favouring acting to prevent people from being harmed, say, by being tortured by someone else. The concern is: How can it be wrong to harm one person when by harming one person one can prevent two other people from being harmed?