[coastbeats]

(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.

Do you recommend a book which covers this precise topic as I will be applying to university this term. This aspect of philosophy interests me the most.

[Zorgotron]

(Original post by coastbeats)
Do you recommend a book which covers this precise topic as I will be applying to university this term. This aspect of philosophy interests me the most.

Since you're just beginning, I would stay clear from Kant and the like. The man's ideas are simple but his books are practically incomprehensible.

I would suggest the following:

James Rachel's The Elements of Moral Philosophy

Simon Blackburn's Ethics: A Very Short Introduction

John Leslie Mackies's Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong

Also check out Plato's Nicomachean Ethics.

(Original post by coastbeats)
But 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.

That's the central problem. Will we respect human rights or the commonwealth?

If we decide that the state is the most important, we as subjects have no rights whatsoever. I may be thrown to the wolves the moment it becomes profitable to the greater society - It's just barbaric and it's a chaotic world in which nobody wishes to live in.

If you wish to be consistent with your reasoning, you should have nothing against institutionalized slavery, murder, discrimination, dehumanization, eugenics etc etc - as all of these things can be justified ''For The Greater Good''.

[coastbeats]

(Original post by Zorgotron)
Since you're just beginning, I would stay clear from Kant and the like. The man's ideas are simple but his books are practically incomprehensible.

I would suggest the following:

James Rachel's The Elements of Moral Philosophy

Simon Blackburn's Ethics: A Very Short Introduction

John Leslie Mackies's Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong

Also check out Plato's Nicomachean Ethics.



That's the central problem. Will we respect human rights or the commonwealth?

If we decide that the state is the most important, we as subjects have no rights whatsoever. I may be thrown to the wolves the moment it becomes profitable to the greater society - It's just barbaric and it's a chaotic world in which nobody wishes to live in.

If you wish to be consistent with your reasoning, you should have nothing against institutionalized slavery, murder, discrimination, dehumanization, eugenics etc etc - as all of these things can be justified ''For The Greater Good''.

Thanks for the list and your input.

But my friend, the problem with philosophy is, you have to stick with principles. If we go back to the child case, I would kill the man to save the child's life. In life I don't then have to stick with the principle of the "greater good". I agree with killing the man but I don't agree with slavery!! But according to philosophy, I have to agree with both as the I have to be consistent with the principle. That's what I'll never understand with philosophy - why we can't pick and choose from different principles rather than just be stubborn and stick with one.

[Zorgotron]

(Original post by coastbeats)
Thanks for the list and your input.

But my friend, the problem with philosophy is, you have to stick with principles. If we go back to the child case, I would kill the man to save the child's life. In life I don't then have to stick with the principle of the "greater good". I agree with killing the man but I don't agree with slavery!! But according to philosophy, I have to agree with both as the I have to be consistent with the principle. That's what I'll never understand with philosophy - why we can't pick and choose from different principles rather than just be stubborn and stick with one.

A consequentialist has to condone slavery assuming slavery in the given context is more beneficial to the greater society than detrimental to the enslaved. Why? Because that's what the consequentialist view is all about - the end justifies the means.

If you just cherrypick your principles and are not consistent with your reasoning, you can be accused of intellectual hypocrisy, dishonesty and cowardice.

For example, I can use the same arguments used to support abortion to justify infanticide. I can use the arguments for abortion to support slavery. You can draw your line in the sand and say - This is as far as we go with this line of reasoning, we will only apply pro-abortion arguments for the unborn and applying them anywhere else doesn't count - but it's cowardly and dishonest.

If your principles have absurd and extreme logical conclusions, then clearly there is something wrong with the foundations of your views and they need to be re-evaluated. You need to fix your problems, but you seem to wish to pretend they're not there.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Zorgotron)
A consequentialist has to condone slavery assuming slavery in the given context is more beneficial to the greater society than detrimental to the enslaved. Why? Because that's what the consequentialist view is all about - the end justifies the means.

If you just cherrypick your principles and are not consistent with your reasoning, you can be accused of intellectual hypocrisy, dishonesty and cowardice.

For example, I can use the same arguments used to support abortion to justify infanticide. I can use the arguments for abortion to support slavery. You can draw your line in the sand and say - This is as far as we go with this line of reasoning, we will only apply pro-abortion arguments for the unborn and applying them anywhere else doesn't count - but it's cowardly and dishonest.

If your principles have absurd and extreme logical conclusions, then clearly there is something wrong with the foundations of your views and they need to be re-evaluated. You need to fix your problems, but you seem to wish to pretend they're not there.

There are a number of consequentialists who would reject the augment you've put forward.

Peter Singer, Jeff McMahon, Peter Unger, Derek Parfit, J.S. Mill, etc. (most of whom have been my professors)

They would accuse you of over simplifying the Consequentialist position and making a straw man fallacy, as none of them would agree to Slavery.

[Zorgotron]

(Original post by NYU2012)
There are a number of consequentialists who would reject the augment you've put forward.

Peter Singer, Jeff McMahon, Peter Unger, Derek Parfit, J.S. Mill, etc.

They would accuse you of over simplifying the Consequentialist position and making a straw man fallacy, as none of them would agree to Slavery.

Out of all the people you've quoted, I'm surprised you brought up Peter Singer.

He may not explicitly support slavery, but he does justify acts that society as whole considers to be immoral such as bestiality, infanticide, euthanasia, the killing of deformed and mentally retarded children, homosexuality etc.

I have not oversimplified the consequentialist position, I have merely taken it to its logical conclusion. Since it's the consequence that ultimately matters, then the action itself is morally irrelevant. If killing a single innocent person benefits the whole of society - the negative consequences of the immoral action are outweighed by the positive consequences of the said action - then not only is this action deemed to be good, but we also have the moral obligation to kill that said innocent person to achieve the positive results.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Zorgotron)
Out of all the people you've quoted, I'm surprised you brought up Peter Singer.

He may not explicitly support slavery, but he does justify acts that society as whole considers to be immoral such as bestiality, infanticide, euthanasia, the killing of deformed and mentally retarded children, homosexuality etc.

I have not oversimplified the consequentialist position, I have merely taken it to its logical conclusion. Since it's the consequence that ultimately matters, then the action itself is morally irrelevant. If killing a single innocent person benefits the whole of society - the negative consequences of the immoral action are outweighed by the positive consequences of the said action - then not only is this action deemed to be good, but we also have the moral obligation to kill that said innocent person to achieve the positive results.

I'm very aware of the controversy of Peter Singer.

Philosophers such as the above-mentioned would say that you've assumed that all actions are permissible, so long as they bring about good consequences, and that the examples you've provided would bring about such goodness.

I'm sure you're aware, the above-mentioned would reject your reasoning and state that you're falsely supposing it would bring about a greater good to society. I'm sure you're aware of their arguments? And the fact that they would not accept your version of consequentialism, yes?

[The Troll Toll]

(Original post by Zorgotron)
He may not explicitly support slavery, but he does justify acts that society as whole considers to be immoral such as homosexuality etc.

I don't think society as a whole considers homosexuality to be immoral.

[Zorgotron]

(Original post by NYU2012)
I'm very aware of the controversy of Peter Singer.

Philosophers such as the above-mentioned would say that you've assumed that all actions are permissible, so long as they bring about good consequences, and that the examples you've provided would bring about such goodness.

I'm sure you're aware, the above-mentioned would reject your reasoning and state that you're falsely supposing it would bring about a greater good to society. I'm sure you're aware of their arguments? And the fact that they would not accept your version of consequentialism, yes?

I'm not aware of all of the people you mentioned, however I am aware of Bentham, S. Mill and J.S. Mill, Singer and the like.

And I can tell you that even though they may not support the conclusions of their ethical systems - the conclusions are still inescapable and the premises need to be re-evaluated.

For example, Mill's harm principle sounds great on paper:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

The harm principle is very clear - any act that doesn't have a detrimental effect on other people or society as whole is allowed and is a private matter of the person conducting the act. How you define ''harm'' is a problem in and of itself.

While we now have a firm foundation to condone euthanasia, homosexuality and abortion - we are also forced to condone suicide, necrophilia, cannibalism, bestiality, polygamy, slavery, narcotics, alchoholism etc. As long as there is consent and the act has no detrimental effect on others, it's allowed and cannot be limited for the limitations would restrain the person's liberty.

I have not invented my own brand of consequentialism, I have taken the system and used its principles to condone behavior that most of us consider to be self-evidently immoral.

The core philosophy of consequentialism and utilitarianism is that actions themselves have no moral status. I am aware that some philosophers have tied moral intuitions to hard-core consequentialism as a way to inhibit the system, but that already borders far too much into deontology.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Zorgotron)
[FONT=arial]

I'm not aware of all of the people you mentioned, however I am aware of Bentham, S. Mill and J.S. Mill, Singer and the like.

They're all very famous contemporary ethicists, especially Parfit -- you've never heard of Reasons and Persons?

Parfit was at Oxford as a researcher, but has since 'aged out' and will begin rotation starting here at NYU.

Unger resides as a permanent faculty member here at NYU.

McMahon resides as a permanent faculty member at Rutgers.

And, obviously, Singer is at Princeton.

Do you study contemporary philosophy? Because it seems all you've mentioned are modern ethicists, which would leave you a bit out-of-date in terms of contemporary meta-ethics. The only modern source you've 'cited' is Singer?

(Original post by Zorgotron)
[FONT=arial]
And I can tell you that even though they may not support the conclusions of their ethical systems - the conclusions are still inescapable and the premises need to be re-evaluated.

If you aren't familiar with them or their work or arguments, how do you know that the conclusions are inescapable? Maybe it may seem that way to you now given the presumptions you're making, but these philosophers would be more than capable of 'schooling' you in meta-ethics.

They typically have in place certain conditions, Mill favors having certain rights, which he seemed to have adopted from deontologists, which he states the violation of which is, essentially, almost never permissible because the harm done by the violation is greater than the good brought about.

(Original post by Zorgotron)
[FONT=arial]
I have not invented my own brand of consequentialism, I have taken the system and used its principles to condone behavior that most of us consider to be self-evidently immoral.

You have invented your own brand; no one follows a 'perfect' consequentialism because no such thing exists; no one knows what the perfect consequentialist theory looks like; everyone makes their own renditions of the theory to form a compatible and coherent view, usually to be in accord with their own internalized moral principles.

You insist the Unger, Parfit, McMahon, etc. would be forced to agree to conclusions which they clearly would not and do not agree with - and yes, they have excellent arguments to support their views.

Personally, I ignore all meta-ethics as I find it to be a fruitless area of debate or study and focus entirely on normative ethics -- as do a number of theorists, such as Unger, Parfit, McMahon, etc.

[Zorgotron]

I'll have to look into those.