Deontology versus Utilitarianism

[DrCube]

Okay, so I should have clarified in the OP that I don’t think either theory in its pure form is ideal. In fact, morality in general is something I have a hard time basing on a consistent logical foundation.

I just think it makes sense to have some method of weighing the rightness or wrongness of an action based on its consequences. It seems to me that duty based ethics boils down to “Do what is right”, without any way of differentiating (I suppose Kant’s categorical imperative is one way of amending that). While utilitarianism at least gives you the further tool of weighing the consequences and seeing if you like the outcome.*

MrDibble, I think moral worth is definitely important. For example, if the train was aimed at a human, and a monkey was on the other track, would you pull the switch? I would hope you would – and in doing so, you’ve made a judgment of moral worth. Would you kill a terrorist in order to save a hostage? And so on. I think it goes without saying that people must create some hierarchies of moral value in order for society to work at all.

A basic concept in economics is opportunity cost. In paying for college, I’ve made the decision that my education is worth more that the lives of all the starving third world children I could have fed with that money instead. Are they worth less in an absolute sense? No. To me? Yes. My personal moral hierarchy places me above random strangers. I believe we make these types of decisions all the time. If you consider education an investment that may one day pay off by providing me with even more income to spend on starvation victims, how about my car or tv?

Carm (re: post #4) Would it make a difference if the runaway train was set in motion by a murderer intent on killing either the 5 people or the one? So in either case, a murder is happening, you just have the chance to reduce it from a quintuple homicide to a single.

*Actually, this paragraph makes me feel I’ve been imprecise, speaking of utilitarianism when I mean consequentialism, and vice versa. Deontology and consequentialism would be the general terms, while utilitarianism and the categorical imperative would be more specific tools within the higher framework. I think. I’m no philosopher here.

[Rand_Rover]

@DrCube

I just think it makes sense to have some method of weighing the rightness or wrongness of an action based on its consequences.

Yeah, that does seem nice, doesn’t it? But it all just comes down to whether you think the action is right (“Hurrah!”) or wrong (“BOOO!”).

So there’s not need to get on anyone else’s ass about the system they use to get to that point–all roads lead there anyway.

[smiling_bandit]

I’m really curious about something. After the multiple philosphy classes I got into in college, I’m pretty sure I know what Deontology is, (and can define in very long words translated from German). Of course, that Kant was a funky guy and not easy to grasop, although unlike Nietzche he is actually comprehensible.

However, when people say things like “The key difference is that the utilitarian is attempting to find the solution that benefits everyone the most.” (carm) or “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.” (Skald the Rhymer) I start to wonder if they’re arguing against Deontology or a figment of it.

Deontology does want to find the solution which helps people most. Immediate material good isn’t the goal, however, but the long-term good of all people. Likewise, Deontology does not elevate “the rules” above morality: it seeks to find the rules which are morality. That is not a trivial distinction.

The Deontologist might not lie and argue forcefully against it, because the Deontologist sees that lies are ultimately self-contradictory and harmful to the self and others. (Yes, not all Deontologists agree with this blah blah not important). He has a vastly wider viewpoint than the Utilitarian. He also probably defines his terms much more closely than the Utilitarian, who has a very bad habiot of tossing around words like utility without defining them and/or changing them whenever it suits. The Deontologist may be stuffy, but he is not forever dashing to and fro trying to satisfy a concept he cannot even measure.

Yeah, that was mean, perhaps, but true all the same. Utilitarianism cannot measure what it seeks to protect. All of its actions are essentially guesses about the consequences it cannot know. Deontology accepts its limitations and works within the boundaries of human knowledge, while also stabilizing the human condition.

Of course, from my perspective, I also see a larger problem. It flat-out assumes we should be Utilitarians. Ultinmately, I can see no intrinsic moral principle dedicated to such without bringing in an arbitrary and/or supernatural moral principle, which is fuitting if often in tension with Deontology (or Virtue ethics) but ultimately incompatible with Utilitarianism.

[BigT]

I don’t see why. I’m pretty utilitarian, and I have no problem with a concept of God. I just believe that all the rules are specifically written because ultimately they are the more utilitarian choices.

What I find confusing is that I can’t think of a rule system that allows you to save the one person and not the five. At the point where you find out there is a problem, you are now in the position to make a choice. I don’t see why a choice of inaction would be inherently superior to a choice of action. I don’t see why one is murder and the other is not, as in both you had the opportunity to decide whether this person would die, and thus, you share at least some of the blame.

[MrDibble]

@Zakalwe

By this measure, no one should ever join the military.

Well, yes.

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.

Actually, I think the primary offer is to contribute to killing other people “for the greater good”. If this can happen without the soldier sacrificing their life, it’s considered better. And that’s why they deserve no honour from any sane society.

[MrDibble]

@DrCube

MrDibble, I think moral worth is definitely important. For example, if the train was aimed at a human, and a monkey was on the other track, would you pull the switch?

Depends - is it Hitler on the track? Is it the monkey wearing a fez?

I would hope you would – and in doing so, you’ve made a judgment of moral worth.

I didn’t say you were wrong to do this, just that it is subjective.

Would you kill a terrorist in order to save a hostage?

Never. Not even if the hostage were my own child.

And so on. I think it goes without saying that people must create some hierarchies of moral value in order for society to work at all.

Agreed. But we don’t always have to agree with Society’s rankings, and can work to overturn them and still be morally “good” while we do it. That’s part of value ethics - *why *we do things, not just the outcomes.

[DrCube]

@Rand_Rover

Yeah, that does seem nice, doesn’t it? But it all just comes down to whether you think the action is right (“Hurrah!”) or wrong (“BOOO!”).

So there’s not need to get on anyone else’s ass about the system they use to get to that point–all roads lead there anyway.

I agree that at its base morality is subjective. But I think utilitarianism gives us another step to take when faced with a moral decision. Not only “Is this action right or wrong?”. But when the choice is ambiguous, or we are forced by circumstance to choose between two wrongs, utilitarianism gives us the extra step of asking “Well, what are the consequences of each choice? Which helps the most, and/or harms the least?”. Sure, the answer to that is arbitrary (to an extent) as well, but it is another step to take that deontology doesn’t offer.

@smiling bandit

Deontology does want to find the solution which helps people most. Immediate material good isn’t the goal, however, but the long-term good of all people. Likewise, Deontology does not elevate “the rules” above morality: it seeks to find the rules which are morality. That is not a trivial distinction.

I think what you’re talking about here is rule utilitarianism. Which may be a hybrid of deontology and consequentialism, but I don’t think it is pure deontology in itself. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I guess I don’t know what deontology is. I defend utilitarianism (hopefully) more than I attack deontology here. If your rules are based in utilitariansim, I wouldn’t disagree with that system, but I’m more an act versus rule utilitarian.

MrDibble, of course our moral hierarchies are subjective. Perhaps I am alone in holding myself to a different standard than I hold others. Personally, I would feel wrong in letting 5 people die when I could have saved them. But if someone else felt it was wrong to pull the switch, I wouldn’t blame them or call them immoral. Furthermore, I would expect anybody else to give my mother the same moral consideration as the average Joe, but I personally consider her more important than that.

[kanicbird]

@DrCube

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?

This is the problem with moral codes, they don’t work for us, and they were never intended to.

The answer is that God is the ultimate judge and He looks at the heart, and that solves all moral dilemmas.

It’s not your action, it’s you intent, if your heart’s intent is to rescue the people then that is how you will be judged, if your intent is to murder the fat man, that is how you will be judges. If you follow the path of love to your greatest capability you know how to at the time, there is no flaw in your action.

Even if you wrestle with it and see both sides, a decision of the heart has to be made, inaction in this case is action, what are you going to do, flip the switch, not to, or ignore it - all are possible paths and different actions of the heart.

[smiling_bandit]

@DrCube

I think what you’re talking about here is rule utilitarianism. Which may be a hybrid of deontology and consequentialism, but I don’t think it is pure deontology in itself. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I guess I don’t know what deontology is. I defend utilitarianism (hopefully) more than I attack deontology here. If your rules are based in utilitariansim, I wouldn’t disagree with that system, but I’m more an act versus rule utilitarian.

Nope. However, Rule Utilitarianism is a hybrid concept though.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@MrDibble

Of course. And…?

So those would be examples of subjectiveness in other systems, too.

But that’s not ad hoc or subjective.

Why not? The law is the creation of subjective opinions. And we allow provision for judges and the like to vary the sentence within a particular crime.

[MrDibble]

@Revenant_Threshold

So those would be examples of subjectiveness in other systems, too.

Of course. But not as subjective, you have to agree?

Why not? The law is the creation of subjective opinions.

Yes and then again, no. It’s a *combination *of subjective and objective (researched, scientific, etc.) opinions. There isn’t a one-drop rule for objectivity. More importanly, it isn’t ad hoc. While sentencing may be, that’s not the issue - it’s what constitutes a crime, and that’s very much the province of a pre-set legal framework of legislature and precedent.

And we allow provision for judges and the like to vary the sentence within a particular crime.

*Within *a rule framework (well, one hopes) - not completely subjective. And like I said, not really relevant to what actually constitutes a crime (i.e. a moral wrong).

[Blalron]

@DrCube

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.)

Here’s an interesting twist to the trolley problem: Instead of that one individual on the track being a random stranger, assume it is yourself that somehow got stuck to the track, the train is headed toward you, and the only way you can survive is to flip the switch and kill five people on the other set of tracks. Does the principle of “self defense” justify this action?

[DrCube]

@Blalron

Here’s an interesting twist to the trolley problem: Instead of that one individual on the track being a random stranger, assume it is yourself that somehow got stuck to the track, the train is headed toward you, and the only way you can survive is to flip the switch and kill five people on the other set of tracks. Does the principle of “self defense” justify this action?

Interesting! While I like to think I would sacrifice myself for others in this situation, I can’t really square that with my comment above about buying a car at the expense of starving Africans. On the one hand, my personal comfort is worth more than the lives of several others, on the other my entire life is worth less. I fully recognize that it is probably due to the immediacy and visibility of the situation. It is easy for me to forget about all the poor wretched people in the world I could devote my life to saving but five people on a train track are right there about to get smashed.

Also, the laziness factor. Maybe it is just easier to quickly kill myself for others than it is to work really hard day in and day out for them.