What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontology
Discuss the merits and deficiencies of political theories and philosophical questions.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| TSR launches Learn Together! - Our new subscription to help improve your learning | 16-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 356
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyWell don't the consequentialists say one thing and the deontologists another? haha(Original post by in_jeopardy)
Who says it has to be one or the other?
Things are only moral in context, whatever the context may be. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyThey can both be wrong.(Original post by coastbeats)
Well don't the consequentialists say one thing and the deontologists another? haha
In fact, I would say that prefering one view to another in this case was wrong.
Clearly the consequenses and reasons for an action both play a part in dictating its morality. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 279
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyIntentions and consquences are everything. Nothing is right just because it is right.(Original post by in_jeopardy)
They can both be wrong.
In fact, I would say that prefering one view to another in this case was wrong.
Clearly the consequenses and reasons for an action both play a part in dictating its morality.
This post brought to you by my high school level of understanding of moral philosophy.
-
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyWelcome to the world of moral nihilism!(Original post by Brevillemonkey)
Intentions and consquences are everything. Nothing is right just because it is right.
This post brought to you by my high school level of understanding of moral philosophy.
Enjoy your stay. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 356
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyI'm a beginner on philosophy but I'm reading atm. Surely if I murder someone but that helps save a childs life, that is a moral action according to the consequentialist (Immanuel Kant being one of them).(Original post by Brevillemonkey)
Intentions and consquences are everything. Nothing is right just because it is right.
This post brought to you by my high school level of understanding of moral philosophy.
-
- Reputation:
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 279
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyI thought Kant was the deontologist.. but yeah I'd say killing someone to prevent them taking the life of someone else is the right thing to do.(Original post by coastbeats)
I'm a beginner on philosophy but I'm reading atm. Surely if I murder someone but that helps save a childs life, that is a moral action according to the consequentialist (Immanuel Kant being one of them). -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Location: Oxford
- Posts: 1,139
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyKant was definately not a consequentialist! He believed we have certian absolute, unconditional duties ('categorical imperatives') the performance of which is morally right in every circumstance, regardless of the consequences.(Original post by coastbeats)
I'm a beginner on philosophy but I'm reading atm. Surely if I murder someone but that helps save a childs life, that is a moral action according to the consequentialist (Immanuel Kant being one of them). -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: New York University '12 --> Durham Law '15
- Posts: 2,866
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyI have a hard time trying to decide if something is wrong because of its consequences or because it violates someones rights.
Also, I think you've mis-categorized the deontological position - the deontological position is not the reason(s) for doing something. Deontology is the view that people have certain rights, what rights they have is dependent on your particular version of deontology, and that these rights cannot be violated under any circumstances.
For example, in the case where I can kill a kidnapper and save a child's life, or let the kidnapper kill the child but have the kidnapper live, the deontologist would be required to say that I should let the kidnapper kill the child. Why? Because if I kill the kidnapper in order to save the child, I violate the kidnapper's right to life, which makes my action morally wrong. If I do nothing and let the kidnapper kill the child, then I haven't done anything wrong.
On the other hand, the consequentialist would say that the action which has the best results is the most morally correct. In this case, I would assume, at least personally, that the better action would be (ignoring all other mitigating factors, etc.) to save the child by killing the kidnapper.
The reasons for my actions play no role in very basic deontology or consequentialism.
These views are also mutually exclusive - you cannot hold both views simultaneously. Either violation of someone's rights is absolutely impermissible, or violation of someone's rights is permissible. The moment you accept that you can violate someone's rights for a 'better outcome' you reject deontology and accept consequentaimlism. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 356
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyWow thank you, that helped a lot. I'm definitely a consequentialist then.(Original post by NYU2012)
I have a hard time trying to decide if something is wrong because of its consequences or because it violates someones rights.
Also, I think you've mis-categorized the deontological position - the deontological position is not the reason(s) for doing something. Deontology is the view that people have certain rights, what rights they have is dependent on your particular version of deontology, and that these rights cannot be violated under any circumstances.
For example, in the case where I can kill a kidnapper and save a child's life, or let the kidnapper kill the child but have the kidnapper live, the deontologist would be required to say that I should let the kidnapper kill the child. Why? Because if I kill the kidnapper in order to save the child, I violate the kidnapper's right to life, which makes my action morally wrong. If I do nothing and let the kidnapper kill the child, then I haven't done anything wrong.
On the other hand, the consequentialist would say that the action which has the best results is the most morally correct. In this case, I would assume, at least personally, that the better action would be (ignoring all other mitigating factors, etc.) to save the child by killing the kidnapper.
The reasons for my actions play no role in very basic deontology or consequentialism.
These views are also mutually exclusive - you cannot hold both views simultaneously. Either violation of someone's rights is absolutely impermissible, or violation of someone's rights is permissible. The moment you accept that you can violate someone's rights for a 'better outcome' you reject deontology and accept consequentaimlism. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 356
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyAlso do you have any books you can recommend for this topic?(Original post by NYU2012)
I have a hard time trying to decide if something is wrong because of its consequences or because it violates someones rights.
Also, I think you've mis-categorized the deontological position - the deontological position is not the reason(s) for doing something. Deontology is the view that people have certain rights, what rights they have is dependent on your particular version of deontology, and that these rights cannot be violated under any circumstances.
For example, in the case where I can kill a kidnapper and save a child's life, or let the kidnapper kill the child but have the kidnapper live, the deontologist would be required to say that I should let the kidnapper kill the child. Why? Because if I kill the kidnapper in order to save the child, I violate the kidnapper's right to life, which makes my action morally wrong. If I do nothing and let the kidnapper kill the child, then I haven't done anything wrong.
On the other hand, the consequentialist would say that the action which has the best results is the most morally correct. In this case, I would assume, at least personally, that the better action would be (ignoring all other mitigating factors, etc.) to save the child by killing the kidnapper.
The reasons for my actions play no role in very basic deontology or consequentialism.
These views are also mutually exclusive - you cannot hold both views simultaneously. Either violation of someone's rights is absolutely impermissible, or violation of someone's rights is permissible. The moment you accept that you can violate someone's rights for a 'better outcome' you reject deontology and accept consequentaimlism. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: New York University '12 --> Durham Law '15
- Posts: 2,866
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyIf you have any other questions about ethics or morality, feel free to ask. I've spent a considerable amount of time studying advanced ethics, so hopefully, I would be able to answer your questions!(Original post by coastbeats)
Wow thank you, that helped a lot. I'm definitely a consequentialist then. -
- Reputation:
- Adored and Respected Member
- Posts: 444
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyWas it not Aristotle himself who states that the action is often less great than the act? The art Warfare, for example - can be good because it enables development in art, literature, music, technology, culture etc. - but the action of warfare itself can be bad for the deaths and the horror and fear and tears and blood.
Following this, would you not see the 'ends' are just the position of the act, as they only allow for the results of the action? And not, consequently, positive off shoots.
So the action and the act are not always equal in morality (juxtapose to my earlier example, a horrific act can be made through seemingly great actions) 'moral' or 'immoral' should all lead come down to moral basis of the individual (although Aristotle argues that the moral grounds of the community are more important, modern politics doesn't quite allow for a perfect picture of community morals).
So really the consequence and the reason can be good, or they can be juxtapose, or they can be bad. However there is never a single reason as actions are always linked to other actions. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyFantastic post! Thank you.(Original post by NYU2012)
I have a hard time trying to decide if something is wrong because of its consequences or because it violates someones rights.
Also, I think you've mis-categorized the deontological position - the deontological position is not the reason(s) for doing something. Deontology is the view that people have certain rights, what rights they have is dependent on your particular version of deontology, and that these rights cannot be violated under any circumstances.
For example, in the case where I can kill a kidnapper and save a child's life, or let the kidnapper kill the child but have the kidnapper live, the deontologist would be required to say that I should let the kidnapper kill the child. Why? Because if I kill the kidnapper in order to save the child, I violate the kidnapper's right to life, which makes my action morally wrong. If I do nothing and let the kidnapper kill the child, then I haven't done anything wrong.
On the other hand, the consequentialist would say that the action which has the best results is the most morally correct. In this case, I would assume, at least personally, that the better action would be (ignoring all other mitigating factors, etc.) to save the child by killing the kidnapper.
The reasons for my actions play no role in very basic deontology or consequentialism.
These views are also mutually exclusive - you cannot hold both views simultaneously. Either violation of someone's rights is absolutely impermissible, or violation of someone's rights is permissible. The moment you accept that you can violate someone's rights for a 'better outcome' you reject deontology and accept consequentaimlism.
Are there any particularly convincing arguments in favour of deontology? It seems to me that attributing absolute moral values to certain acts is nonsensical in the face of the possible situations you could find yourself in.
Indeed if someone were to find themselves in the situation of allowing a murderer to kill a child or killing the murderer, even though it is morraly correct to wish never to kill someone, it seems that most people if able to wouldn't willingly allow the child to die.
If fact, if you are willingly allowing the child to die by your actions, isnt that the same thing morally as killing the murderer? -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: New York University '12 --> Durham Law '15
- Posts: 2,866
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyThe deontologist would say that the murderer has a right to life, which you cannot violate.(Original post by in_jeopardy)
Fantastic post! Thank you.
Are there any particularly convincing arguments in favour of deontology? It seems to me that attributing absolute moral values to certain acts is nonsensical in the face of the possible situations you could find yourself in.
Indeed if someone were to find themselves in the situation of allowing a murderer to kill a child or killing the murderer, even though it is morraly correct to wish never to kill someone, it seems that most people if able to wouldn't willingly allow the child to die.
If fact, if you are willingly allowing the child to die by your actions, isnt that the same thing morally as killing the murderer?
If the child dies, it was the murderer, who actually killed the child, who violated the child's right to life.
If you were to kill the murderer in order to save the child, you would be acting just as badly as the murderer.
The deontologist differentiates between actions here based on what rights would have to be violated: In the case of saving the child, you would have to kill the murderer (violate the murder's right to life by killing them). In allowing the child to die, you are not violating the child's right to life, the murderer is.
Whether or not apathy is just as bad as killing someone is a widely debated topic, with philosophers taking both sides. -
- Reputation:
- Junior Member
- Posts: 57
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyDeontology has its fair share of problems, but the problems are, in my opinion, far smaller than that of consequentialism.
As a deontologist, I would argue that it doesn't give us rights, but it does give us imperatives. I would not argue that everyone has a right to life, I would however argue that it is always wrong to take an innocent life.
The child/murderer example does not apply to me because it doesn't represent the deontological imperatives I follow. From my perspective, in the given situation, killing the murderer to save the child is permissible as I have a duty to protect my fellow man from the murderer, who is not an innocent person. Killing him is proportionate to his crimes.
The example is really atrocious as it paints deontology as a super pacifist system - I couldn't even defend myself as killing my attacker would make me as bad as the attacker himself. Such a principle a deontologist would never support.
Consequentialism is much harder to defend that deontology.The problem with consequentialist ethics is that it really has no limits whatsoever and it condones all immoral behavior as long as the positive consequences outweigh the negative actions.
A consequentialist would argue for example that detaining homeless people for the purpose of testing various chemicals, medicines etc on them would be morally permissible because from those experiments the greater majority of the society would benefit from them.
I could also bring out the classical organ example:
Imagine that each of five patients in a hospital will die without an organ transplant. The patient in Room 1 needs a heart, the patient in Room 2 needs a liver, the patient in Room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in Room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests. Luckily (for them, not for him!), his tissue is compatible with the other five patients, and a specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five. This operation would save their lives, while killing the “donor”. There is no other way to save any of the other five patients (Foot 1966, Thomson 1976; compare related cases in Carritt 1947 and McCloskey 1965).
Basically, it would be permissible as it is better to kill one than let 5 die. The positive consequence outweighs the single immoral action.
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 356
Re: What makes an action moral? Consequentialism or deontologyBut surely as a society, it is the greater good which will have an outstanding, positive effect on the people. Deontolgy focuses on the individual - the rights an INDIVIDUAL acquires and it makes it morally wrong to infringe on any right, no matter how small. But if everyone thinks for himself, we as a race won't last. The greater good will always have a larger importance than the individuals right, even if it requires infringing an innocent person's right to life - like the organ case you put forward. It sounds very cruel and "unfair" I guess.(Original post by Zorgotron)
Deontology has its fair share of problems, but the problems are, in my opinion, far smaller than that of consequentialism.
As a deontologist, I would argue that it doesn't give us rights, but it does give us imperatives. I would not argue that everyone has a right to life, I would however argue that it is always wrong to take an innocent life.
The child/murderer example does not apply to me because it doesn't represent the deontological imperatives I follow. From my perspective, in the given situation, killing the murderer to save the child is permissible as I have a duty to protect my fellow man from the murderer, who is not an innocent person. Killing him is proportionate to his crimes.
The example is really atrocious as it paints deontology as a super pacifist system - I couldn't even defend myself as killing my attacker would make me as bad as the attacker himself. Such a principle a deontologist would never support.
Consequentialism is much harder to defend that deontology.The problem with consequentialist ethics is that it really has no limits whatsoever and it condones all immoral behavior as long as the positive consequences outweigh the negative actions.
A consequentialist would argue for example that detaining homeless people for the purpose of testing various chemicals, medicines etc on them would be morally permissible because from those experiments the greater majority of the society would benefit from them.
I could also bring out the classical organ example:
Imagine that each of five patients in a hospital will die without an organ transplant. The patient in Room 1 needs a heart, the patient in Room 2 needs a liver, the patient in Room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in Room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests. Luckily (for them, not for him!), his tissue is compatible with the other five patients, and a specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five. This operation would save their lives, while killing the “donor”. There is no other way to save any of the other five patients (Foot 1966, Thomson 1976; compare related cases in Carritt 1947 and McCloskey 1965).
Basically, it would be permissible as it is better to kill one than let 5 die. The positive consequence outweighs the single immoral action.
