Academic Philosophy

The point is that it's a hypothetical exercise (and in Kant's time, you couldn't call the cops since there were no telephones).
 
@umbarsc
That's a good distinction that I overlooked. As to rule utilitarianism, what if breaking the rule produces more utility than adhering to the rule?

@vonfielder
I'm not sure what you mean by "in practice deontologist who do not care about the ends are nihilists". I wouldn't say that deontologists do not care about the ends--period. However, deontologists do not think that we can make moral assessments about the ends. Morally, the ends are irrelevant, according to deontologists--even if certain ends produce favourable effects. That's simply what the theory of deontology posits. Nothing more; nothing less. The distinction between in practice and in theory is untenable. If a deontologist does not think that the theory holds in practice... then the supposed deontologist isn't much of a deontologist. As a note of clarification, a deontologist can think his moral theory holds in practice, even if he is unable to exercise it himself (due to some weakness of character, for example).

And the purpose of these "comic book scenarios" is to see if the theory holds in all possible scenarios. It's a technique that is often used to tests the logical rigour of philosophical systems. Even if the situations are unlikely, if the theory is strong, then it should be applicable. The only caveat is that the situations are hypothetically possible.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I'm not sure what you mean by "in practice deontologist who do not care about the ends are nihilists".
Half-assed nihilist, anyone who doesn't care about the consequences of their actions out of some weak sense of philosophy sounds more like the kind of people who excuse their actions by claiming nihilism when they still care about the way they do things (I have a friend who could qualify).

However, deontologists do not think that we can make moral assessments about the ends. Morally, the ends are irrelevant, according to deontologists--even if certain ends produce favourable effects.
And so when means and ends conflict, which they do on a daily basis (For instance, treat a deadtalking rule loosely to help your mafia team? A relevant example from today), a deontologist chooses the morally favorable mean. The end may be totally irrelevant, that doesn't stop it from existing.

In my day to day life, I've found the right mean usually leads to favorable outcomes, while a utilitarian approach can be far more of a gamble (for instance, as a child lying to get out of trouble). As I grew older and more experienced, it became pretty obvious that desperate measures were just that, desperate, avoidable, and not an optimal long term strategy even if the moral returns were sometimes greater.

Take for instance a thought experiment of a slightly less comic book nature. You're a stage performer trying to raise money for a sick relative who needs an operation. You have a fairly mundane routine that you've practiced to perfection, and with ticket sales projections you should be able to able to cover the operation by the end of the month before your relative takes a turn for the worse. On the other hand, you have an untested death defying stunt that puts you and your partner in danger, and is strictly forbidden by your manager. This draws greater crowds, generating more money getting your relative their operation within a week. When all is said and done, you can say "man it's good to be a utilitarian. That was the most moral outcome one could ask for." But instead, your partner dies in the stunt, the show is ruined, no money, no operation. Listening to your manager would have been the right thing to do, not just because your actions were reckless, but because you would been able to afford the operation eventually anyway.

In short, if your actions are sound their outcomes will be consistently more favorable. Deontologists might say they don't care about the outcome, but if their means never had moral outcomes they probably weren't moral means to be begin with.
 
One of the points that deontologists make is that if you go against what is "right", then you become an agent in the state of affairs. For example, let's go to the case that Kant presents in "On a Supposed Right to Lie": there is a murderer who wants to butcher your friend, and knocks on your door asking if your friend is in the house. Kant claims that if you lie and say that he isn't in the house, it makes you responsible for what happens next. What if, for example, the murderer kills another family, or your friend actually DID escape out a window, and dies anyways?

Unfortunately, the unconvincing part of this argument is that it's impossible to know such things, and you cannot be faulted for acting to the best of your ability on the limited information you possess.

Still, though, it's an interesting point.
This argument falls apart because it assumes that the only sentience is your own; in reality, whatever statement you make to the guy at your door, HE is responsible for everything that happens afterwards because he is the one who makes the decision to act.


That's how the legal system works, too. Novus actus interveniens.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I read a lot a bit of philosophy in college-- but I have forgotten almost all of it, because none of the philosophers who came up in study gave any basis of ethics that was at all convincing.

For instance, earlier in the thread Kant was mentioned-- interesting, but ultimately inconclusive . . .
 
@von fiedler You seem to be assuming that utilitarianism would encourage people to take more risks than is necessary, this should not be the case. In the situation that you gave it seems almost certain that the expected value of the utility of the safer routine was more than that of the less safe routine. The inability to know what exactly will happen and thus the inability to perfectly predict the ends of an action is a real problem with utilitarianism in practice but you make it sounds like a utilitarian would only consider one outcome and ignore the other possibilities. This is not how it should work. A utilitarian should consider all possible outcomes of each course of action and pick the course of action that has the greatest expected utility.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top