Is there a rational argument for Deontology?

Great Debates
1

It seems to me that almost every political or social debate we see has, at its root cause, a profound disagreement. We all look at different situations and try to find the best answer, and we cone to very different conclusions. At times, irreconcilably different conclusions.

This root difference varies by issue, of course, but a very common theme that I’ve noticed is a key difference in how the different sides of the debate decide what is or is not a desirable outcome, approaching the question in fundamentaly different ways.

For example, take the question of whether hate speech should be allowed. Some members of society approach this question from the perspective, “if we allow hate speech, the consequences will be X, and if we forbid it the consequences could be Y. So we should compare the societal costs and benefits of approach X vs approach Y to determine which is better”. Others say, “Free speech is a fundamental right”.

Same thing with gun control, or abortion, trans rights, etc… even something like the idea that government is inherently inefficient or government spending is inherently bad. So many questions come down to consequentialism versus deontology.

So. Here’s my question. Is there any rational reason to favor deontology over consequentialism, in any scenario?

I’ll out my bias: I’m a dedicated consequentialist. Outside the context of religion, where God literally comes down and tells you what rules to follow (and where following these rules is inherently a good idea because God said so), I see absolutely no redeeming qualities to deontology. Rules are only valuable insofar as they produce desirable outcomes.

Note, that does NOT mean that I am a moral relativist. I think one set of outcomes can absolutely be better than another. But the rules themselves have no inherent value, other than their ability (or lack thereof) to bring about desired outcomes for society.

But maybe I’m missing something. Can anyone offer up a defense of deontology that does not rely on a deity telling us “yes, these rules are desirable”?

2

I hope I’m contributing something rather than just fighting the hypothetical (or equivalent thereof)… but it seems to me that, in such debates, there’s usually a huge issue of priorities, not just “is consequence X good”, because there are usually multiple consequences to a policy or law.

Take abortion as an example. A right-to-life anti-abortion activist might say “The consequences of abortion being legal and available are death! Death and murder! Baby killing!” A pro-choice feminist activist might say “The consequences of women being unable to terminate a pregnancy are patriarchy! War between the sexes, men and women as sexual adversaries! Women reduced to incubators!” They aren’t necessarily contradicting each other, so much as each is claiming that the consequences the other side points to are trivial compared to those their own side is concerned with.

3

I don’t think deontology requires a belief in God at all, though it is reduced to some set of self-evident (from the holder’s perspective) truths. For example, I believe the right to be left alone is axiomatically a right.

But I think we all are both, and we tend toward one end of the spectrum or other. As another example, I believe balancing natural (God-given if one prefers) rights with their impact on others’ rights and duties is perfectly appropriate. That goes for free speech, the right to bear arms, etc. No right is absolute, and their restriction is largely (and properly) based on the exercise’s effect on other people.

So, yes, they are in conflict. But except for the fringe on either side, I think most of us are “balancers.” We just disagree on where to draw the line.

4

It depends on whether or not you believe in universal truths.

I found this definition: " Deontology is an ethical theory that says actions are good or bad according to a clear set of rules. Its name comes from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. Actions that align with these rules are ethical, while actions that don’t aren’t."

In the Greek state of Sparta, they would put to the sword any child born deformed. Heck, maybe they offed the Greek version of Helen Keller but, according to Deontology, it’s okay because it was in line with Spartan society’s clear set of rules.

So, are good and evil totally relative or not?

5

Sadly, conflicting views on these matters are usually resolved by force

6

IMHO the problem with the deontology side is that those who argue from rules or principles have a tendency to lie about what their true principles are. At least that seems to be the case in today’s United States.

Take your example of whether or not hate speech should be allowed. A large number of the people who say that it should be, citing “free speech is a fundamental right” only mean that when it’s something they agree with. A university refuses to allow a white supremacist to speak on campus? The university is cancelling free speech. The governor of Florida doesn’t like the speech used by Disney and starts signing laws to hurt their business? We don’t like what Disney is saying, so that’s OK with us. Deep down they don’t care about freedom of speech, they only care about their side winning.

Prayer in school is another. The Texas legislature just tried to pass a law requiring th 10 commandments be posted in every classroom. The Christian fundamentalist deontologist would say “that’s just us exercising our freedom of religion.” Of course they’re not going to be saying that when the Muslims request breaks during the day to pray to Allah, or if Satanists want to hang a pentagram in class, or any other such thing. Because deep down they don’t care about freedom of religion, they only care about their side winning.

The same goes for most other issues. Guns? Abortion? LGBTQ rights? A large number of the people who use deontological arguments to support their positions for gun rights, against abortion, and against LGBTQ rights are just using that as a fig leaf. All they really care about is their side winning.

7

“Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.”

— Isaac Asimov

8

The trouble with “clear rules” is that they never take all conditions into account. And by the time you take all conditions into account, your rules are not clear and you have to adjudicate every case. On what basis are you adjudicating every case? Consequences, because what else is there? Free speech is a right, but in certain conditions it can lead to unacceptable consequences (such as a stampede in a crowded movie theater).

So I think deontology is kind of a straw man. The consequences are always the main part of the argument, the only disagreement is which consequences are important and which are trivial, or which consequences really are consequences of the subject in discussion and which ones are caused by something else.

9

I think the issue with an 100% consequentialist position (or I guess an attempt at one) is that we can never know the exact consequences of our actions and we’re also biased about all sorts of things.

A secondary (and IMO related) issue is the “when fighting monsters” issue where once it’s OK to kill or something to prevent some even worse outcome, now your psychological barrier to killing is weakened and you might be more likely to do it when there isn’t a monster to fight or when the awful means you’re doing aren’t actually necessary.

10

The human brain is a wonderful thing. Some people, including many who enjoy the Straight Dope, look at complex issues from multiple angles. They weigh what seems reasonable. In fact many people think they use such a logical approach.

But many don’t. Feelings, emotions, what peers and parents believe, education and experiences affect what seems like it should be the answer. Sometimes people are good at justifying what they want to be true. This is very common, and not everybody who does it becomes a Supreme Court Justice or even realizes that is how they arrived at a conclusion.

11

One major problem with consequentialism is that the consequence is often uncertain or difficult to ascertain. Nearly every decision is made without full knowledge of the relevant circumstances. Overall I find that deontology provides more practical guidance for decision-making. Consequentialist analysis is very useful when making deontological rules - such as statutes or workplace policies.

The greatest critique of consequentialism I have ever encountered was in The Republic. It is an argument to absurdity, reproduced below. If you remove the consequence, I am not willing to do away with right and wrong, and therefore I reject pure consequentialism. (Others who believe in God may avoid this conclusion by means of God’s omnipotence.) There are some philosophies of consequentialism I could identify with, but none of them are objective (or absolute).

Now that those who practise justice do so involuntarily and because they
have not the power to be unjust will best appear if we imagine something
of this kind: having given both to the just and the unjust power to do
what they will, let us watch and see whither desire will lead them;
then we shall discover in the very act the just and unjust man to be
proceeding along the same road, following their interest, which all
natures deem to be their good, and are only diverted into the path of
justice by the force of law. The liberty which we are supposing may be
most completely given to them in the form of such a power as is said
to have been possessed by Gyges, the ancestor of Croesus the Lydian.
According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of
the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an
opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed
at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels,
he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and
looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than
human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the
finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together,
according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the
flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his
finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet
of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the
rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no
longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring
he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials
of the ring, and always with the same result–when he turned the collet
inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he
contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court;
whereas soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help
conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose
now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of
them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an
iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his
hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he
liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at
his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all
respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be
as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same
point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is
just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him
individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he
can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.

~Max

12

I think so too. At least, I think pure deontology and pure consequentialism are both inadequate.

13

If you don’t believe in universal truths, isn’t that also a problem for consequentialism, since there are no “universally true” standards by which to evaluate the consequences of an action?

14

Deontology gives you a metric (like a kilometer) and consequentialism gives you a specific measurement (like 15 kilometers).

If both you and the person that you’re talking to largely accepted the same system of measurement (murder is “bad”, saving children from burning buildings is “good”) then any debates that you have are going to be more in the territory of calculating the consequences. On the whole, are there more plusses than minuses?

If you and the person that you’re talking to have conflicting sets of foundational principles (abortion is …?) then the debate is going to have to center around deontology.

15

Seems like a logical conclusion to me.

16

Late reply, but I hope it’s still relevant.

I was never wholly in one camp, but I definitely used to lean closer to utilitarianism when I was younger, and definitely lean closer to the deontology camp these days.

A few things:
Utilitarianism is, presumably fact-based. It’s the sciency nerd perspective. That’s what used to draw me to it. Why do all that boring philosophy when you can just calculate the right answer? Best outcome for the most people, what’s the problem? But it’s naive for a couple of reasons.

One, morality is not fact-based. It’s entirely subjective. Science can, presumably, tell you what will happen if you do X, and what will happen if you do Y, but you have to make a subjective, personal decision about which outcome you prefer. So you still need guidelines for deciding which is the morally preferable outcome, and “greatest good for the greatest number” is awfully vague, and it kind of falls apart on closer examination, rather than firming up. Examples abound.

Here’s one of mine. If preventing suffering is how you interpret “maximizing utility” or whatever, you could make a very good case for mass human extinction,if not sterilizing the planet entirely. Any suffering caused today would be balanced by untold infinities of lives that were prevented from experiencing any suffering at all. If you say “death counts as suffering, and obviously nonexistence is as bad as death” you’re making a rule to judge the hypothetical by. You have to twist definitions to get it out of the trap.

Of course if you’re less worried about preventing suffering, and more about maximizing pleasure and happiness, that could easily lead to Brave New World, or routine lobotomies, or whatever. You’d have to make rules to exclude those kinds of options from the calculation.

And two, science can’t actually tell you what will happen. Outside of controlled laboratory experiments or cyclic astronomical phenomenon, science can’t actually predict much with any certainty. It’s all about statistics. And anyone with any experience with statistics will tell you it’s extremely complicated, mysterious, it’s easy (even for PhD scientists and mathematicians) to be led to false conclusions or misguided, and in general it’s a pretty terrible way for average people to make personal decisions or understand the consequences of their behavior.

There are gazillions of examples of unintended consequences I don’t need to go into. And in practice, the average person needs rules to go by, even if they’re informed by statistics and utilitarian considerations. They can’t run these numbers themselves.

Also, I think deontology leads to different kinds of decision making. I think of recent incidents where innocent minorities were murdered, by police or civilians, and they claimed they feared for their lives. I’m as big a proponent of the right to self defense as anyone, but I can’t see myself gunning down a man carrying a toy gun in Walmart, even if I thought it was a real gun. I can’t imagine shooting a kid with a BB gun in the park, even if I thought he had a real deadly weapon.

That’s not enough for me to fear for my life, even if my puny racist brain couldn’t fathom a black man openly carrying a weapon in a public place. It needs to be a legitimate fear, and an imminent threat. You can’t just say “he might have killed me!” But that’s all statistics gets you. What might happen. It’s just not capable of resolving most moral questions, in my opinion. Certainly not in the moment. You need rules for that. Self imposed rules, rules from an outside authority, like the church or your parents or a public figure you look up to, but rules either way.

And in general, if it’s a risk one way or the other, I’d much rather risk my life and avoid being a murderer, than risk another person’s life, and become a murderer. I’m going to err on the side of not becoming a murderer, even if that increases the risk to my own life. I’d just rather be dead than a murderer, you know? To me, that line of thinking is definitely deontological.

I don’t think either is sufficient on their own, you need both to make an informed decision. But in practice, i think it boils down to personal rules we place on our own behavior. Statistics, utility, or a consideration of the consequences simply helps guide our own personal rule set, ahead of time, before the actual decisions are made.

17

This might be my lack of understanding, but I thought moral relativism is exactly the position that you’re advocating.

Moral relativism does not say outcomes don’t matter. Nor that whether an action is good or bad is arbitrary.
It’s just saying that whether a given action, like stealing or lying, is good or bad is situational.

(Again, it’s possible I’ve got this wrong. On googling to double-check, the definitions are all over the map)

18

That’s not exactly my interpretation.

I don’t think that stealing being situational is moral relativism. Under moral relativism, stealing may be wrong for me because I consider it wrong, but if Joe doesn’t see anything wrong with stealing, then it’s not wrong for him.

What you desribe is, for example, a situation where someone is starving, and stealing is the only way they can survive. In that scenario it may be situationally moral to steal. But under my worldview, it would be moral for anyone in that situation to steal - it doesn’t matter what their personal beliefs are, which is what I think a moral relativist would look at.

19

To riff on what Babale just said, I think there’s an important difference between “Hey, you aren’t infallible and you don’t know everything, so maybe Joe over there, who doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with stealing, is actually correct”, on the one hand, versus “There is no morality, there is just your idea about morality and Joe’s idea about what’s moral, not to mention Bernie Madoff’s idea and those of that World War II dude with the silly moustache… at no point can you say ‘this set of ideas about how people should behave is a better set than this other set’, because there are no grounds for ranking one above another”.

So let’s consider that contrast.

I am definitely of the first type — I bumble around in imperfect understanding of the issues and experiences, and I make value judgements and decisions, and although I let it matter to me quite passionately, I try to keep an open mind about dissenting viewpoints maybe being valid.

I am definitely NOT of the second type. Whether we can get our tongs on them or not, I think there are absolute principles that, if we did know everything we would need to know, could be derived from general observation. Moral principles that are as dependably reliable as the laws of gravity and thermodynamics.

20

Why would you have to make rules to explicitly exclude either the “wipe out humans to prevent suffering” option or the “drug everyone into neverending pleasure” option? Either there is something wrong with those options, in which case you should identify what that is and include that factor in your “greatest good” calculations; or you should concede that maybe they are actually good ideas after all.

Personally I am not a fan of either of those two options, but I have no problem arguing against them from a consequentalist point of view - I don’t feel the need to throw my hands up and make an explicit “I can’t tell you why but this is bad” ruling.