Ethics: Deontology vs Consequentialism

Consequentialism (simplified: that it is the effect of an action which determines its ethical value) is an approach to ethics which can be divided into two parts, both parts equally dependent on the idea of Utilitarianism (simplified: that the best possible option should be done for the sake of the good). These two parts, simplified, are Act Consequentialism, which states that each action must be determined individually for its ethical value, and Rule Consequentialism, which states that rules are in place because the rules most likely result in the Utilitarian outcome. Deontology states that it is not the effect of an action which determines its ethical value, rather that individual actions are, as a rule, either good or bad actions regardless of their effect; these involve killing a person, torture, etc. Kant's Deontology essentially states: if everyone in the world were to go about things this way, would it be acceptable or not? If so, then go ahead; if not, then don't.

I, personally, am an Act Consequentialist. Which do you identify with, if any? What alternatives do you suggest? What problems do you see with either approach?

Example of where each would apply:
Murdering someone is wrong
A. Always (Deontology)
B. Sometimes, depending on whether or not the murder will result in a better world (e.g. killing Hitler pre-Nazi Germany) (Act Consequentialism)
C. Sometimes, depending on whether or not it is acceptable based on the rules (e.g. during war and on the battlefield) (Rule Consequentialism)

i see the rightness and wrongness of acts to be a matter of context and intention

acts themselves are just as arbitrary as bullets themselves

theyre nothing without their context - its the context which gives meaning to the acts

but there are a few actions i simply dont see any realistic context for being able to defend

so i consider these acts to be universally wrong with the assumption that i would recognize a justifying context if one appears

Both of these are very strict and simplistic models to answer questions that are no less complex than they are relevant.

I would tend to be more of a consequentionalist, not so much because I feel that the ends justify the means but because I find that it is a massive problem in deontic moral frameworks to competely ignore the consequences and instead insist that thoughts and actions have an inherent moral value of their own, which, by the way, the deontologists never get around to declaring, much less accounting for. Kant's Categorical Imperative tries to get around that by delivering a method of judging an action. One could apply his method in every situation but would then be forgetting that in deontology moral values are absolute and independant of the situation. What troubles me more about the Imperative though is that I am so made as to having to discard it precisely because I applied it: I would not want to live in a world where everyone conformed to the Imperative, so according to the Imperative I should therefore not be applying it myself.

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, fails to acknowledge both bad intent and bad outcome for as long as there is a surplus good outcome, ignoring for the moment, that it provides no consistent way of judging an aspect of the outcome as either good or bad. On pure utilitarian principles many most abhorrent actions or structures are to an extent considerable. It is hard to argue that something that has no bad consequences be evil in and of itself but it is easy to see that even a solution that ultimately does more good than harm is still bad for all the harm it does, even if that realization is useless as a means to decide how to act.

If there is anything to be taken out of deontology, I'd say it is the notion of human dignity and fair conduct. It is often difficult to see how, for instance, a particular lie is harmful, which, of course, they all are without exception; deontological systems might provide some ammunition for that discussion though one should be cautious not to take deontology to far for that purpose as it can be defeated rather quickly if it is.

'Murder is wrong' is not a good example. Rather, killing-with-justifications provides a richer ethical discussion: 'in self-defense' and 'in the line of duty' (for example, a soldier in battle) can be considered forms of killing that have ethical justifications. Deontology would develop universal justifications, that is, a universal law based upon reason and applicable to each instance/circumstance of killing. The state can kill but suicide is immoral. Wars can be just but self-defense would require further elaboration.

Question: What would deontology say about rights?

permissible harm and categorical imperative would suggest "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (thanks spock!)

divine command makes it just another tool for imposing religious dogma imo - under this version we would have the right to obey someone or anothers interpretation of the bible

original kantian view would not be too very different from what we've got in most instances i think although abortion maybe would be seen as only defensible if the mothers life is at risk by the birth

mostly "good will" is hard to prove in court, a reality many a litigator has noted

these are conclusions drawn from a look at wikipedia and i admit i may not correctly understand the distinctions

And this is what I don't understand: If deontology would consider each situation, would it then not in essence be addressing consequences and therefore no longer be fully deontic? The moment a deontologist argues that "you may kill if and only if it would in the particular situation save your life or the lives of others", to me he immediately sounds like someone who is saying "consider what happens if you do or do not kill, and pick the option that promises the generally better outcome" and that is about as consequentialist as it gets, is it not?

The needs of the many and the needs of the few is also some of the purest utilitarian rhetoric around, entirely to be ignored from a deontological perspective. Something about all our moral philosophy text books would have to completely turned upside down if we are to call it deontic henceforth.

As for the question of rights, I'm not sure deontology in and of itself offers any comments on the subject. That being said, since, unlike act-utilitarian models, deontological systems propose inalienable moral duties before one's fellow creatures, while rights as a concept remain unnecessary to justify them, they may be an easy shortcut. In other words, the deontologist might define a particular right as the way one is allowed to act or be acted upon or both, and from then on just refer back to that particular right rather than explain his meaning in a lengthy paragraph every time.
An act-consequentialist has no need or use for the concept of rights and indeed would be better off without them, because he must consider all or most situations separately and decide on a case-by-case basis.
The rule-consequentialist is probably also better off without the notion of rights, lest he seem like a deontologist in suggesting inalienable rights, but he may have the same use for the concept, namely as a shortcut to refer to a complex rule or set of rules. He would however have to stress the exceptions to the rules for otherwise his position is indistinguishable from that of a deontologist.

the only things i think i can say that is relevant and worth hearing at this point are

the idea of utilitarian duty to my fellows disturbs me simply because it implies that someone else gets to determine what my appropriate duty may be in any given context and i reject this notion

and

that if i understand consequentialism its that taken to the letter it is ALSO impossible

i had a girl friend at one time who had a son that shot himself by mistake with a friends pistol

he lived but now hes in a wheel chair

she blames herself because she wasnt as good of a mother as she thinks she should have been - in honesty shes right she made some real mistakes as a mother but i HAVE a mother and from what i can tell the best of them do that from time to time

and she wasnt even there - he was at a frinds house and she was somewhere else

he was like 18 yrs old

but he lived with her at the time and she feels she should have acted differently

in any event what about buying your kid a car and he/she crashes and dies? or gets drunk and kills someone else?

doesnt this make the act "bad" by consequentialist logic?

the best one can adhere to is intended consequence - is that inherent within the view?

am i missing something?

As many have pointed out, the reality is these philosophies are limited and all of them have holes in it. I like deontology as a philosophy a bit more than I do utilitarianism, but it is best to use these two camps as "tools" for assessing a moral situation and then going from there.

Alan asked what would deontology say about rights. I would say the answer is in Kant's second forumlation of the categorical imperative "Act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means". I would say this has to go hand in hand with rights because treating people "as ends in themselves" is you giving to others moral "inviolability," and that sort of inviolability forms the basis of rights. Why should we have free speech? Because people have the inviolable right to say what they want to say. Why we do we have a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.? Because people have the inviolable right to not have to be endured this harm. Why do people have a right to a trial by jury? Because people have an inviolable right to not have their freedom arbitrarily taken away.

When you treat a person as an end in themselves, I see that as you giving them a bunch of "rights" that wouldn't infringe upon. Heck you can even say "rights" are just specific rules we can follow to fully treat people "as ends in themselves".

I would consider myself a deontologist. I took it a bit different though. I agree with Kant's categorical imperative, and the 3 maxims. I would say, and I could just be mimicking what I have read as I forget now (of course it is still base don what Kant says), that morals are subjective and different for everyone, however, for each individual they act as absolutes. The morals we chose for ourselves are categorical, in that we have a duty to follow and act on the morals that we set for ourselves, even if it does not lead to the best possible outcome.

From what I hear, it is very difficult to follow. On the other side, people notice when you do something. People like consistency, and this provides it.

The best maxim to make your rules: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law

OB1Shinobi wrote: the only things i think i can say that is relevant and worth hearing at this point are
the idea of utilitarian duty to my fellows disturbs me simply because it implies that someone else gets to determine what my appropriate duty may be in any given context and i reject this notion
and
that if i understand consequentialism its that taken to the letter it is ALSO impossible

i had a girl friend at one time who had a son that shot himself by mistake with a friends pistol. he lived but now hes in a wheel chair
she blames herself because she wasnt as good of a mother as she thinks she should have been - in honesty shes right she made some real mistakes as a mother but i HAVE a mother and from what i can tell the best of them do that from time to time and she wasnt even there - he was at a frinds house and she was somewhere else
he was like 18 yrs old but he lived with her at the time and she feels she should have acted differently

in any event what about buying your kid a car and he/she crashes and dies? or gets drunk and kills someone else? doesnt this make the act "bad" by consequentialist logic?

the best one can adhere to is intended consequence - is that inherent within the view?
am i missing something?

From what I know, consequentialism, and utilitarianism by extension, would not say you have a duty to do anything. Utilitarianism is based on the principle of utility, where it depends on how the action is useful to you. That means the ethical action is conditional, certainly not a duty.

Deontology has a duty, but it does not restrict other people. Because we have the ability of choice to choose which morals to follow as a duty, we are free from the bondage of other people.

Human choice, however, is a choice that can indeed be affected but not determined by impulses, and is therefore of itself (apart from an acquired proficiency of reason) not pure but can still be determined to actions by pure will.

— Immanuel Kant, Metaphysics of Morals, 6:213-4

Because a human has pure will, it would be difficult to put blame on the mother for leaving her 18 year old son alone at home, unless there is some mental health issues at play. Even then more information would have to be given.