Deontology versus Utilitarianism

Great Debates
1

My girlfriend and I are both fond of friendly philosophical debate, but on this issue she gets extremely angry and calls me “asshole” and “stupid” and the like. So I thought maybe I would get some input from the Dope on whether I’m being obtuse or stubborn here.

Definitions:

Deontology - This is a rule-based ethical system that judges the morality of an action based on adherence to duties and rules. This doesn’t necessarily mean the law or religion; but it means come up with a list of rules governing your actions based on your own morality and stick to it.

Utilitarianism - This is a consequentialist ethical system that judges the morality of an action based on what the effects of that action are. Specifically, it seeks to either maximize pleasure (positive or default utilitarianism) or to minimize pain (negative utilitarianism).

It is often illustrated by an example of a runaway train heading towards a fork in the tracks: If left to itself, the train will veer left and annihilate 5 people stuck on the track. Conversely, you have access to the switch that will cause the train to veer right and kill a single individual stuck on that side of the track. (Why they are stuck I don’t know. Perhaps they are tied. Perhaps they are deaf, blind and/or oblivious to their oncoming doom.)

A deontologist (or my girlfriend at least) would not pull the switch. The reason is that it will violate the rule against killing someone, while letting 5 people die through inaction will not.

A utilitarian (me) would gladly throw the switch, arguing that 5 dead people is worse than one. (This gets stickier when we consider that it may be my mother alone on the right track, but we’ll assume here that all individuals are of equal moral worth to the person at the switch.)

A “gotcha” addendum to this scenario is one in which there is no switch: You can let the train kill the 5 people or you can push a fat man in front of the train to stop it. Lots of people would consider this murder but not throwing the switch.

With the very large caveat that we can’t be confident that pushing someone in front of the train will save the 5 with the same surety as throwing the switch, I would have no problem pushing the fat man if it was guaranteed to save them. Rather, I would have a lot of emotional problems with it personally, but upon dispassionate reflection I feel that it is the moral thing to do. Or at least not immoral.

One issue I responded to her with was vaccination. A small number of people will be severely harmed or even killed by vaccinations, but the overall effect is that many more will be saved from disease and epidemics. This is the point where she called me an asshole, since she obviously agrees with vaccines. She points out that a big consideration for deontologists is intent and motive. While throwing the switch on the train tracks is intended to kill someone, vaccines are intended to help them. I argued that this is a distinction without a difference, because throwing the switch is intended to save many at the expense of the few, just like vaccines.

Who is right?

2

I would not agree that this is a distinction necessarily without a difference. She is right in one crucial respect: by offering the vaccine, the administrator intends to help each individual vaccinated. There are positive externalities (e.g. herd immunity) and a nonzero probability of negative side effects, but the positive externalities alone do not necessarily make vaccination worth the risk—this is not a good of the many vs. good of the few scenario. I concur with her that this is not a great example for making your case.

I do agree with on the whole, however. I would ask her: what if you lived in comic-book land and were 100% certain not only that the man you pushed in front of the train was utterly invulnerable, but that he wouldn’t mind being pushed; would it be moral to push him? I think “yes” would be a pretty uncontroversial answer. What if you were only 99.9999% certain he was an invulnerable super-hero? Does it immediately become immoral?

3

Only if you have a very simplistic ruleset that can’t come up with rules like “don’t kill people* or allow them to die through inaction*. If that’s not possible, save the greatest number” or somesuch.

Here’s why I have a problem with utilitarianism: “moral worth” is completely subjective, often inconsistent, just basically amounts to “I’ll do what I want to do, and make up the justification afterwards” - essentially, an amoral system disguised as a moral one.

Personally, I side with your girlfriend. Man is a social animal, the only way to make society work, IMO, is a rule-based system of morals rather than an ad hoc subjective non-system. That way people have expectations of consistency and reciprocity makes sense. It doesn’t in your system.

Notice that your reasoning for your supposed utilitarian actions does have an underlying ruleset, by the way “maximise total moral value (to me) saved” is as much a hard rule for you as “don’t directly kill people” is for your girlfriend.

4

I would let the 5 people die.
I think the utility lost by murdering one person would be greater than five people dying accidentally. A good part of our utility comes from feeling secure within our community, not having to fear our lives will be sacrificed for the greater good. We accept that we may die in a car crash, or get struck by lightning, and that is already factored into our utility. But the knowledge that our right to life only extends as far as we are maximising society’s utility would greatly lower our own utility, and thus, the total utility of society.

So as a utilitarian, I would not avert my course.

5

I have to disagree with this (besides, i’m a utilitarian ;)). Yes, “moral worth” is an entirely subjective measure. But what measure of morality isn’t? What makes it a more subjective approach than any other moral system? Beyond that, unless the OP actually has pushed a fat man in front of a train to save several others, it seems silly to say that his overall argument amounts to doing what you want and then afterwards justifying it. The whole point of the analogy, being a pretty common one, is to examine one’s motives and ideas before or pretty much irregardless of whether such a situation ever comes along.

Whether it is “often inconsistent” - sure, i’ll give you that one. But again, so’s everyone else’s. That seems more of an objection to particular utilitarians rather than utilitarianism in general.

There’s plenty of problem with utilitarianism, but I don’t think this is one (or, at least, isn’t one to a greater extent than other moral systems in general).

6

Social consensus ones.

The individualism and the ad hoc nature of it all. The OP freely admits that who the people are in relation to him might change the decision, for instance. That’s inherently more subjective than a deontological system.

I should note I’m not a deontologist, nor am I a utilitarian, I find them both limited ethical systems. I’m more of an Aretaic myself.

7

This is a good analysis, and I think it underlines how many people, when they talk about utilitarianism, seem to take it for granted that it’s completely obvious what “utility” is. I think there’s not even much point in distinguishing utilitarianism from any other moral philosophy: we can provide a reduction from any philosophy to utilitarianism by defining an appropriate utility function.

FWIW, my moral philosophy holds that the best way to deal with the quandary of letting five people get smushed vs. throwing the switch and killing one is to dither indecisively until the problem solves itself. :stuck_out_tongue:

8

But they may differ based on which people are considered to “count” (and to what extent) in a society, and how much of a consensus is necessary.

But that might well also change the decision in a deontological system - it depends on what the rules are. I mean, we currently have laws which mean different levels of crime have been committed based on the relationship between comitter and victim.

I’d be interested to hear your views on your own system - not to extend the debate, I don’t want to hijack, but just in terms of learning about it.

9

You are both right. Or neither of you is right. It doesn’t matter, really.

I subscribe to “emotivism,” which basically says that, when you say “action x is immoral,” all you are really saying is “I don’t like when people do action x.” Emotivism is also called the “boo/hurrah” theory, becuase in the example above you are saying “boo to action x.”

There is no substance to the statement that action x is immoral, so someone can’t be wrong in saying it. They are right if they truly feel they don’t like action x.

I think that saying “action x is immoral” does have substance if you are talking about whether a society should prohibit or encourage action x. In that case, you are using “immoral” as a stand-in for “harms society.” But, of course, you are still just expressing your opinion about whether action x harms society.

10

Of course. And…?

But that’s not ad hoc or subjective.

I’ll type something up tomorrow, but short story - value ethics, to some extent, fuelled by a non-respect for hierarchy or individualism.

11

Deontology always strikes me as being both cowardly and lazy at its base. By elevating the following of rules to the highest level, it attempts to elevate the moral comfort of the actor over producting the best outcome. I have no respect for it.

12

Well, Skald, the counterargument to that is that a utilitarian is till only comfortable with what they feel is the best outcome, so both theories are just using a lot of BS analysis to arrive at the answer that makes them comfortable.

13

Rand, I’m having a little trouble parsing this. Did you leave out a word between is and till?

14

Sorry–till = still.

To rephrase entirely, you seemed to be saying that deontology is bad because it elevates the domfort of the actor over the best results. But the actor decides what the best results are. So, both systems collapse into “whatever makes the actor comfortable.”

15

The key difference is that the utilitarian is attempting to find the solution that benefits everyone the most. Utility is a subjective term, but you would find a pretty broad area of consensus among the majority of people. Very few people think that mandatory daily torture would increase total utility. Very few people think that everyone in the world having basic human rights would not increase total utility. Most people’s idea’s of good and bad, and right and wrong, are pretty similar. There will always be sociopaths who see things completely differently, but thankfully they are a minority.

This is false. There is a huge difference between something you don’t like, and something you feel is immoral. There is an overlap of course - I don’t like seeing people beat up grannies, and I also feel it is immoral. But if I go up to Jennifer Alba and ask her out, and she refuses, I may not like her action, but I would certainly not consider it immoral. On the other hand, a paedophile priest knows it is immoral to have sex with children, yet does it anyway, because he likes it.

16

I think your Jennifer Alba example turns around what I said I’m not saying that everything you don’t like is immoral, or that you must think that. I’m just saying that when you say “that’s immoral,” you are just saying “I don’t like it,” and there’s no more objective content or value to your statement than that.

17

By this measure, no one should ever join the military. At it’s core, that’s exactly what our soldiers and sailors do every single day. They offer to sacrifice their lives for the greater good and we rightly honor them for it.

18

That’s a choice. If the fat man chooses to jump in front of the train, all due respect to him.
I meant not having to fear that our lives would be sacrificed by someone else.
I would be against conscription, unless it was really necessary. If the country is being invaded by the Nazis, and the army is not strong enough to win without extra troops, you have a choice between conscripting citizens, which is bad, or losing the war with the Nazis, which would be much worse. Conscription for something like the Iraq war I would consider just as unfair on the conscripted soldiers as the Iraqi civilians.

19

It is perfectly possible to know something is immoral and still enjoy it, however. I know it is immoral to steal sweets from fat children, yet I still enjoy it immensely. The fact that they can’t catch me makes it both more immoral and more fun!

PS I’m joking about stealing sweets. Obviously I steal their whole lunch box.

20

Well, now you are using “to know something is immoral” differently than the OP used it. The OP assumed that a person would not do something they believe is immoral–you are allowing for the ol’ “the devil made me do it” aspect of things.