NationStates Jolt Archive

The latest violence in the Middle East has reminded me of the contrast between two main moral systems in the world today.

Deontology "What must be done"

This system has a core set of values that must be followed in order to be moral. At its extreme there is no regard for any consequences of following the values.

Eg. If the moral value is "no one gets left behind", then you can send a dozen soldiers to rescue a captured soldier (like Saving Private Ryan), and even if there is little hope, or everyone dies, or the situation escalates dragging in more deaths, this action is still moral.

Consequentialism/Utilitarianism "What are the effects"

This system regards the consequences of an action crucial in determining how moral it is. At its extreme it disregards any social norms, beliefs, duties or responsibilities.

Eg. If a military action results in the unforeseen collateral deaths of hundreds, even if it was still a "strategic victory", it is still considered immoral.

Of course there are in-betweens, hybrid systems and other systems, but if you could choose only one system between these two, which moral system do you most agree with?

call me a mix of both. In most instances it is about concequence of options, however in a FEW cases, there are instances where what must be done, must be done.

Because I accept those few cases, I vote in that option.

Deontology -- I love process. It is not the orgasm, It is how you get there that counts.

I aim above morality.

I aim above morality.
Whilst I am below it.

My morals have a prefix of "a-".

call me a mix of both. In most instances it is about concequence of options, however in a FEW cases, there are instances where what must be done, must be done.

Because I accept those few cases, I vote in that option.

But under the consequentialism system you could still do those things, it would just be that you would have to consider the actions immoral.

My morals have a prefix of "a-".

Yes, but that is still an ethical choice.

It seems like the best form would be a mixture with a leaning towards consequentialism.

Count me square in the middle. My consequential morals call for very high consequences, but there are limits.

But under the consequentialism system you could still do those things, it would just be that you would have to consider the actions immoral.

I posed a question in my college philosophy class, stole it from the movie outbreak.

Here's the scenario. A city of 1 million has become infected with a supervirus. There is no cure. You are the president of the united states, your advisors tell you that should you drop a nuclear warhead on this city, the virus will be completely wiped out (imagine you can be 100% certain that the virus WILL NOT escape the city if you do this).

However you will kill all 1 million people. If you don't do it, roughly half of the city, and half the population of your nation, will be killed by the virus.

Do you do it, and are your actions immoral?

EVERYONE said yes, we'd do it. Most said it would be moral.

I said it was not, it was murder, murder is immoral. However I'd still do it. And I'd accept that sometimes, well screw it, you just have to be immoral. So I'd do it, and I'd live with it.

I probably wouldn't get a good night's sleep for the rest of my life. But I'd do it.

Yes, but that is still an ethical choice.
It's the ethical choice of "Hey, fuck it."
We're all going to die soon anyway, and, while I believe in heaven, I don't believe God will let us into it... so why bother with morals?

I posed a question in my college philosophy class, stole it from the movie outbreak.

Here's the scenario. A city of 1 million has become infected with a supervirus. There is no cure. You are the president of the united states, your advisors tell you that should you drop a nuclear warhead on this city, the virus will be completely wiped out (imagine you can be 100% certain that the virus WILL NOT escape the city if you do this).

However you will kill all 1 million people. If you don't do it, roughly half of the city, and half the population of your nation, will be killed by the virus.

Do you do it, and are your actions immoral?

EVERYONE said yes, we'd do it. Most said it would be moral.

I said it was not, it was murder, murder is immoral. However I'd still do it. And I'd accept that sometimes, well screw it, you just have to be immoral. So I'd do it, and I'd live with it.

I probably wouldn't get a good night's sleep for the rest of my life. But I'd do it.

Most agree that your Deontological stance is too extreme -- there are a ton of these types of example (Winston Churchill had this dilema in real life). So, the person who allows the death of innocents should feel guilty recognizing what they did was wrong.

Most agree that your Deontological stance is too extreme -- there are a ton of these types of example (Winston Churchill had this dilema in real life). So, the person who allows the death of innocents should feel guilty recognizing what they did was wrong.

Well that's my point. If I nuked a city and killed a million people I would consider it an immoral act, I would feel guilty for the death of innocents.

But to save society, I'd do it. I'd feel the guilt of my action, but I'd do it.

I posed a question in my college philosophy class, stole it from the movie outbreak.

Here's the scenario. A city of 1 million has become infected with a supervirus. There is no cure. You are the president of the united states, your advisors tell you that should you drop a nuclear warhead on this city, the virus will be completely wiped out (imagine you can be 100% certain that the virus WILL NOT escape the city if you do this).

However you will kill all 1 million people. If you don't do it, roughly half of the city, and half the population of your nation, will be killed by the virus.

Do you do it, and are your actions immoral?

EVERYONE said yes, we'd do it. Most said it would be moral.

I said it was not, it was murder, murder is immoral. However I'd still do it. And I'd accept that sometimes, well screw it, you just have to be immoral. So I'd do it, and I'd live with it.

I probably wouldn't get a good night's sleep for the rest of my life. But I'd do it.

That makes it sound as though you agree with the second system though. Your fist post said you agreed with the first. :confused:

so why bother with morals?

Where there is ethics, there is a moral system behind it, which is more abstract -- the OP's example would be the ethical part (this contains values and so on) and the Deon/Util part is the moral aspect -- although the distinction between what ethics is and what morality is, is not settled upon. In any case, "why bother with morals" is actually a moral position. I had a class that asked that same question. here's another way of putting it? "Why have a conscience?" Here's a facile response: do you want people to like you? Do you want to have friends? Do you even want to interact with people in forums? If you answer yes, then you will need a conscience, since people don't like to interact with people who will screw them over and not feel bad about it. So, there you have a reason to be moral.

My morals are neither deontological nor are they consequentialist. I do not act as I do because of some remote and higher 'duty', but nor do I act on the expectation that my predictions of the effects of my actions are correct.

I act as I do because I am human, and I have human desires and feelings. I want to be respected and liked, but I also want pleasure. I want my life to be comfortable and not to suffer from unnecessary guilt. My morals are natural, natural to me as a human.

In some limited aspects there are consequentialist concerns, but these are highly restricted. In other senses there are deontological issues, but these derive from my nature, not from some external 'duty'.

Consequentialist. It's the only system that accounts effectively for the purpose of morality - maximizing what is good.

I'm not Wiccan, but I think that their "Wiccan Rede" pretty much sums up my moral stance -"love is the law, love under will, if you harm no one do what you will." This is, like all moral statements, open to interpretation. In some cases, for instance, it's not so much a matter of doing no harm, but of minimizing harm or choosing the less harmful option. Wars, for instance happen, so you wage them for defensive reasons and try to minimize collateral damage.

I guess I believe in consequences, but am open to the reality that some things must be done regardless of consequence.

Well that's my point. If I nuked a city and killed a million people I would consider it an immoral act, I would feel guilty for the death of innocents.

But to save society, I'd do it. I'd feel the guilt of my action, but I'd do it.

Yes, but that would be a side effect to the greater good that you would have brought about. Essentially, it is a consequentialist position that tries to satisfy deontological objections by using a response of guilt. So, Churchill, who new that the Nazis were going to bomb the crap out of Coventry (and they did), but didn't tell the inhabitants, because the Nazis would have known that the British had cracked their code, acted in a consequentialist way -- the greater good was brought about by allowing the bombing. Yet, Churchill feeling regretfull and guilty about his choice, is attempt to satisy the deontologists (in their purist form) who claim that it is always and everywhere wrong to kill innocents.

I think however that the terms are a bit off. The way I define them is:

concequential/utilitarian: the results dictate the morality. That which is done "for the greater good" is moral, because it accomplishes the greater good

Ontological: some things are just immoral. Sometimes the greater good is immoral. Doesn't mean you don't DO it, but that it's immoral.

Bombing a city to kill a virus is the greater good. But it's murder of innocence. Thus it is an immoral act. But ya still do it, because it's the greater good.

An immoral act is an immoral act, REGARDLESS of why you do it. Just sometimes...well fuck it you need to be immoral.

Where there is ethics, there is a moral system behind it, which is more abstract -- the OP's example would be the ethical part (this contains values and so on) and the Deon/Util part is the moral aspect -- although the distinction between what ethics is and what morality is, is not settled upon. In any case, "why bother with morals" is actually a moral position. I had a class that asked that same question. here's another way of putting it? "Why have a conscience?" Here's a facile response: do you want people to like you? Do you want to have friends? Do you even want to interact with people in forums? If you answer yes, then you will need a conscience, since people don't like to interact with people who will screw them over and not feel bad about it. So, there you have a reason to be moral.
Ah, but the thing is, I don't bother with morals, I just do what I think will make me feel best. I think they call that hedonism, actually... But, anyway, this gives me a reasonable facsimile of "morals", so I can act like a regular guy. The thing is, hurting others does NOT make me feel good, so I generally don't hurt others, unless it WILL make me feel good (e.g., they're attacking me, insulted me grievously, hurt someone I love).

Oh, BTW, PS: Don't act like a prick if any of the answers of your above facile questions are yes. kthnxsby.

I posed a question in my college philosophy class, stole it from the movie outbreak.

Here's the scenario. A city of 1 million has become infected with a supervirus. There is no cure. You are the president of the united states, your advisors tell you that should you drop a nuclear warhead on this city, the virus will be completely wiped out (imagine you can be 100% certain that the virus WILL NOT escape the city if you do this).

However you will kill all 1 million people. If you don't do it, roughly half of the city, and half the population of your nation, will be killed by the virus.

Do you do it, and are your actions immoral?

EVERYONE said yes, we'd do it. Most said it would be moral.

I said it was not, it was murder, murder is immoral. However I'd still do it. And I'd accept that sometimes, well screw it, you just have to be immoral. So I'd do it, and I'd live with it.

I probably wouldn't get a good night's sleep for the rest of my life. But I'd do it.

Not so fast. If you do adopt the deontological ethical theory as national system (as opposed to a personal moral), then by killing 1 million citizens in what you concede is in fact murder, you would be liable to trial for crime against humanity.

Consequentialist. It's the only system that accounts effectively for the purpose of morality - maximizing what is good.

Wrong purpose from my point of view.

Morality is about how, or what it is, to live a good life. It is personal - it is not about some minimax game applied to society as a whole.

Philosophically it is a practical subject. It is one that should inform you as to what you do, and why you do what you do. Consequentialism can not ever fulfill this role as we cannot know the totality of the future, which is what consequentialism demands of us.

Not so fast. If you do adopt the deontological ethical theory as national system (as opposed to a personal moral), then by killing 1 million citizens in what you concede is in fact murder, you would be liable to trial for crime against humanity.

Fair enough, "murder" has legal connotations, I did not mean to imply illegal act.

It may not be "murder" in the legal sense, but it is "killing of innocents" which may in cases I outlined be legally permissable, but still immoral. And I'm not talking about a national morality, I'm talking about the guy who pushes the button and luanches the nuke that kills the 1 million innocent people.

That is an immoral act.

But it's a necessary one.

So sometimes...you just gotta be immoral

Ah, but the thing is, I don't bother with morals, I just do what I think will make me feel best. I think they call that hedonism, actually... But, anyway, this gives me a reasonable facsimile of "morals", so I can act like a regular guy. The thing is, hurting others does NOT make me feel good, so I generally don't hurt others, unless it WILL make me feel good (e.g., they're attacking me, insulted me grievously, hurt someone I love).

Oh, BTW, PS: Don't act like a prick if any of the answers of your above facile questions are yes. kthnxsby.

Hedonism is a moral system. Doing what's best for you is an ethical attitude -- it is a value that you possess and alters your behavior. What you are going on about here is morals and you live by some type of ethical system. It may be a crap one or an excellent one, but it still is one.

Fair enough, "murder" has legal connotations, I did not mean to imply illegal act.

It may not be "murder" in the legal sense, but it is "killing of innocents" which may in cases I outlined be legally permissable, but still immoral. And I'm not talking about a national morality, I'm talking about the guy who pushes the button and luanches the nuke that kills the 1 million innocent people.

That is an immoral act.

But it's a necessary one.

So sometimes...you just gotta be immoral

I don't know, you see, is it an immoral act? The fact that you bring about the greater good makes it a moral act. It is just you recognize your guilt or regret. It seems to me that it is a moral act -- that is, the right action to take.

Wrong purpose from my point of view.

Morality is about how, or what it is, to live a good life. It is personal - it is not about some minimax game applied to society as a whole.

Philosophically it is a practical subject. It is one that should inform you as to what you do, and why you do what you do.

I can't accept the notion that morality is about living a good life. It does solve some problems - it provides a real basis for objective morality, for instance - but it just doesn't fit my conception of what morality is.

Consequentialism can not ever fulfill this role as we cannot know the totality of the future, which is what consequentialism demands of us.

No, it demands that we try our best.

I don't know, you see, is it an immoral act? The fact that you bring about the greater good makes it a moral act. It is just you recognize your guilt or regret. It seems to me that it is a moral act -- that is, the right action to take.

No it isn't a moral act.

It was intentionally taking innocent life. That is immoral. Just because the greater good came out of it doesn't make it moral.

An immoral act is an immoral act, regardless of why you did it.

Sometimes you have to be immoral to bring about the greater good. Sometimes you just MUST be immoral.

Just because good come out of it, doesn't make it moral. Just...sometimes you gotta be immoral.

Hedonism is a moral system. Doing what's best for you is an ethical attitude -- it is a value that you possess and alters your behavior. What you are going on about here is morals and you live by some type of ethical system. It may be a crap one or an excellent one, but it still is one.

If you want to define a moral system in that way, then heck, my cat has a moral system. (Probably quite a good one.)

The question of which moral system do you use presupposes that you have considered alternative ways of judging right actions from wrong ones, and made a conscious decision as to how you are going to do this. If you simply act in a non-reflective pleasure or satisfaction seeking manner, it is disingenious to describe this behaviour as moral in any way. If you have decided that you are going to act in such a way as to maximise your pleasure, and that the good, is simply pleasure itself, then that is a moral system - (hedonism). There is a difference in that one simply acts, the other acts to an end that they have defined as being the good.

I can't accept the notion that morality is about living a good life. It does solve some problems - it provides a real basis for objective morality, for instance - but it just doesn't fit my conception of what morality is.
So you see morality as a social rather than an individual quality. I don't. I see myself as an individual and as responsible for my actions. I seek some method or basis on which to guide my actions.



No, it demands that we try our best.
In that case the consequences don't matter. It is the effort we make now to predict the consequences that matter. Thus the system becomes a deontological one. We have a duty (here and now) to try our best to predict the outcome of our actions and act in such a way that these are to the maximum good (which is currently undefined).

snip
Here's the scenario. A city of 1 million has become infected with a supervirus. There is no cure. You are the president of the united states, your advisors tell you that should you drop a nuclear warhead on this city, the virus will be completely wiped out (imagine you can be 100% certain that the virus WILL NOT escape the city if you do this).

In all honesty, I wouldn't be able to do it. No one deserves to be killed without a chance of struggling against death. It's just one of those things.
After all, what makes the people in the city deserve to die?

Wrong purpose from my point of view.

Morality is about how, or what it is, to live a good life. It is personal - it is not about some minimax game applied to society as a whole.

Philosophically it is a practical subject. It is one that should inform you as to what you do, and why you do what you do. Consequentialism can not ever fulfill this role as we cannot know the totality of the future, which is what consequentialism demands of us.

I disagree. Consequentialism is focused on the most likely results of our actions, not on the results of random events. You don't need to be a clairvoyant to use consequential systems.

No it isn't a moral act.

It was intentionally taking innocent life. That is immoral. Just because the greater good came out of it doesn't make it moral.

An immoral act is an immoral act, regardless of why you did it.

Sometimes you have to be immoral to bring about the greater good. Sometimes you just MUST be immoral.

Just because good come out of it, doesn't make it moral. Just...sometimes you gotta be immoral.

You are a Deontologist. What you say is somewhat convincing, but I think there is some tension between what is moral and what isn't moral and the consequences. I mean, if you asked Winston Churchill, "Were you wrong?" or "Are you immoral?", I don't think he would answer "Yes" and I don't think he should have to. Sure, a Deonotological definition of Morality or some description thereof, would look only at the process and the principles therein. However, I think a consequentialist would like "the ends" or "greater good" as part of what is moral or imoral.

In all honesty, I wouldn't be able to do it. No one deserves to be killed without a chance of struggling against death. It's just one of those things.
After all, what makes the people in the city deserve to die?

because they got screwed by life.

Do they deserve it? no. Is it fair? No.

but you just got to do it, even if it means immorality.

You are a Deontologist. What you say is somewhat convincing, but I think there is some tension between what is moral and what isn't moral and the consequences. I mean, if you asked Winston Churchill, "Were you wrong?" or "Are you immoral?", I don't think he would answer "Yes" and I don't think he should have to. Sure, a Deonotological definition of Morality or some description thereof, would look only at the process and the principles therein. However, I think a consequentialist would like "the ends" or "greater good" as part of what is moral or imoral.

I am a deontologist, that's why I chose it.

The problem some people have is that they assume one must always act morally. Not necessarily so. One should act for the greater good typically. Even if that means being immoral

So you see morality as a social rather than an individual quality.

Well, it's both. We can judge both societies and individuals by looking at to what extent they maximize what is good, and to what extent they intend to do so (an idiot who tries to do what is right and instead causes immense harm is not evil, merely stupid.)

I don't. I see myself as an individual and as responsible for my actions. I seek some method or basis on which to guide my actions.

You sound vaguely Aristotelian (on this subject) to me. Is that an accurate characterization?

In that case the consequences don't matter. It is the effort we make now to predict the consequences that matter. Thus the system becomes a deontological one. We have a duty (here and now) to try our best to predict the outcome of our actions and act in such a way that these are to the maximum good (which is currently undefined).

If you want to put it that way, sure. But I'm still determining which action is moral by what the consequences are likely to be - not by whether it violates or doesn't violate some abstract rule dictated by God or reason.

I am a deontologist, that's why I chose it.

The problem some people have is that they assume one must always act morally. Not necessarily so. One should act for the greater good typically. Even if that means being immoral

What do you mean by moral?

I disagree. Consequentialism is focused on the most likely results of our actions, not on the results of random events. You don't need to be a clairvoyant to use consequential systems.

Limited consequentialism is fine (but insufficient to guide action). I was addressing a post that baldly stated that we had to maximise the good. That is an unachievable and unrealistic goal.

To use a consequentialist system, that is not just a redescription of a deontological system, one has to be able to accurately predict the effects, outcomes, of your actions. This involves events beyond your control. (Not random, by chaotic at least.) Thus short term, limited scope consequentialism is practical on a statistical basis only. On the basis that "If I do X then it is most likely that Y will occur, and that is sufficient to justify my doing X". This is a very long way from maximising the good.

Consequential, but not absolutely.

I am above morality.
Oh Lord, what shall I do to serve you best?

Well, it's both. We can judge both societies and individuals by looking at to what extent they maximize what is good, and to what extent they intend to do so (an idiot who tries to do what is right and instead causes immense harm is not evil, merely stupid.)
You then end up in the situation of having to make you moral evaluations of others based on something which you have no access to - their intent. All you have access to are their actions. Aside from this though, for a consequentialist position to work, there has to be a clear understanding of what is good. (see the last point in this post.)


You sound vaguely Aristotelian (on this subject) to me. Is that an accurate characterization?
Although it is almost impossible to not be Aristotelian to some degree when dealing with ethics, I do not consider myself to be unduly influenced by "The Philosopher". I am much more a cross between Hume and Nietzsche



If you want to put it that way, sure. But I'm still determining which action is moral by what the consequences are likely to be - not by whether it violates or doesn't violate some abstract rule dictated by God or reason.
And by what standard do you judge certain consequences to be better than others? Some abstract rule dictated by God or reason?

No it isn't a moral act.

It was intentionally taking innocent life. That is immoral. Just because the greater good came out of it doesn't make it moral.

An immoral act is an immoral act, regardless of why you did it.

Sometimes you have to be immoral to bring about the greater good. Sometimes you just MUST be immoral.

Just because good come out of it, doesn't make it moral. Just...sometimes you gotta be immoral.

Based on your views, you seem to be a deontologist. However, by saying 'sometimes you just MUST be immoral', that is the ultimate ethical cop-out.

Let me explain. If you believe that ethical systems are just lip-service with no bearing on your actions, then you could have voted "morals are a load of crock".

If you accept deontology, and believe that murder is wrong no matter what, you would never (action constrained by your moral system) press the button to kill a million. Or to kill even one. Even if they kill you if you don't press the button.

That is the true meaning of Deontology.

On the other hand, you accept consequentialism, and press the button for greater good, you may feel guilty for the 1 million deaths for the rest of your life. But there will be 300 million survivors who will remind you that what you did is MORAL.

On the other hand, you accept consequentialism, and press the button for greater good, you may feel guilty for the 1 million deaths for the rest of your life. But there will be 300 million survivors who will remind you that what you did is MORAL.

That is just the problem here, Arthaisis, is using words "the greater good" as if they are seperate from morality. That is why someone needs to explain what morality is, because I think that we are talking about it in different ways.
I'm off to work, I'll check back later.

Based on your views, you seem to be a deontologist. However, by saying 'sometimes you just MUST be immoral', that is the ultimate ethical cop-out.

Let me explain. If you believe that ethical systems are just lip-service with no bearing on your actions, then you could have voted "morals are a load of crock".

If you accept deontology, and believe that murder is wrong no matter what, you would never (action constrained by your moral system) press the button to kill a million. Or to kill even one. Even if they kill you if you don't press the button.

That is the true meaning of Deontology.

On the other hand, you accept consequentialism, and press the button for greater good, you may feel guilty for the 1 million deaths for the rest of your life. But there will be 300 million survivors who will remind you that what you did is MORAL.

Perhaps then neither option is valid. Therefore, in the words of Mythbusters, I reject your reality, and substitute my own.

You then end up in the situation of having to make you moral evaluations of others based on something which you have no access to - their intent. All you have access to are their actions.

Well... yes. All you can do is come to the most reasonable conclusion from their actions, as far as making your own moral evaluations goes. But the fact that you cannot tell that they are moral or immoral does not make them any less so.

And by what standard do you judge certain consequences to be better than others? Some abstract rule dictated by God or reason?

I concede this point. I realized my error about fifteen seconds after posting it; I was trying to get at the idea that I see morality as a practical guide to achieving certain (social) goods rather than a rigid set of rules that are justified in themselves, but all I am really doing is extending the arbitrary justification one more step.

Limited consequentialism is fine (but insufficient to guide action). I was addressing a post that baldly stated that we had to maximise the good. That is an unachievable and unrealistic goal.

To use a consequentialist system, that is not just a redescription of a deontological system, one has to be able to accurately predict the effects, outcomes, of your actions. This involves events beyond your control. (Not random, by chaotic at least.) Thus short term, limited scope consequentialism is practical on a statistical basis only. On the basis that "If I do X then it is most likely that Y will occur, and that is sufficient to justify my doing X". This is a very long way from maximising the good.

I think by maximising the good he meant the best option at the time of decision making. No doubt the final results will differ from the ideal - this limitation of consequentialism has been offset somewhat by Rule Utilitarianism.

Of course you can always criticize what is the ultimate meaning of "good". There are bizarre people who enjoy brutal torture, for example. Consequentialism is helpful only if good can be assessed on simple terms.

For Deontology though, for all its admirable dogged adherence to a set of principles, the moral basis of these principles themselves are suspect and may initially reflect consequential concerns.

because they got screwed by life.

Do they deserve it? no. Is it fair? No.

but you just got to do it, even if it means immorality.
No, you don't have to. You could spare half the people in the city. While this will kill half the people in the country, it might still be better than using a nuke.

After all, if you use a nuclear weapon, where is the line drawn? Maybe next time, it'll be a less fatal disease, but a nuke could still be used to eliminate it. And, if you're killing those who are infected with a fatal disease, why not round up those who are infected with HIV and kill them? After all, it has a 100% mortality rate. And, maybe this will lead to the government killing those who speak against them, and calling them infected.

If sparing half the people in the city is reason enough to not use a nuke, then maybe avoiding this downward spiral of immorality is.

Based on your views, you seem to be a deontologist. However, by saying 'sometimes you just MUST be immoral', that is the ultimate ethical cop-out.

Let me explain. If you believe that ethical systems are just lip-service with no bearing on your actions, then you could have voted "morals are a load of crock".

No, actually utilitarianism is the cop out. It says that morality is flexible, and as long as we think we're doing good, we can't be immoral.

You say, if you push the button, you're being moral, since it's greater good.

No...you killed a million people. That's not moral, that's never moral.

Deontology says "morality is fixed, and always be moral", utilitarianism says "greater good defines morality"

neither fits my views. Morality is fixed, and it functions as a guide, one must be moral, unless one absolutly must not be. The greater good does not automatically make something moral, morality is morality. However sometimes you just have to.

No, actually utilitarianism is the cop out. It says that morality is flexible, and as long as we think we're doing good, we can't be immoral.

You say, if you push the button, you're being moral, since it's greater good.

No...you killed a million people. That's not moral, that's never moral.

Deontology says "morality is fixed, and always be moral", utilitarianism says "greater good defines morality"

neither fits my views. Morality is fixed, and it functions as a guide, one must be moral, unless one absolutly must not be. The greater good does not automatically make something moral, morality is morality. However sometimes you just have to.

If you pushed a button and killed a million people, you say that is never moral.

Fine.

But by not pushing a button and thus causing 150.5 million people to die, would you be more moral? Will it make you any less guilty to stop the infection when you could?

Your country lies in ruins with more than half the population wiped-out. Can you sleep any easier?

I am aware that deontologists consider consequentialism no different from being moral-less. What I am trying to demonstrate to you and other forum readers, is that deontologists can also be considered arbitrary and moral-less.

In a deontological system if a particular owl sculpture is considered sacred and defiling it was supposed to be the utimate crime punishable by death, then anyone who fiddles with it must die. Regardless of what (lack of) ill effects defiling a piece of rock may result. Or how many people must die.

I'd say morality must be defined on a case by case basis.
But generally I go by "Does it cause more harm then it fixes?"
Thus, dropping that nuke is moral.

I think by maximising the good he meant the best option at the time of decision making. No doubt the final results will differ from the ideal - this limitation of consequentialism has been offset somewhat by Rule Utilitarianism.

Yes, this limitation has been offset by rule utilitarianism, at the expense of any consequentialist content in the moral decision. All rule utilitarianism does is to provide a set of 'rational' rules by which we are supposed to guide our actions. These rules purport to be consequentialist in nature, but that in itself is an impossibility, as the existence of the rules themselves demonstrates. (If we could predict the outcome, we would not need the rule, but we need the rule, so we cannot predict the outcome.)

Having said that, I recognize that moral action is essentially forward looking in its nature. A moral action is one that the agent believes will result in desirable outcomes. If this were not the case the only normative force would be that of the action being moral in itself, which is a major problem for deontological systems. It is quite possible for a person to recognise that an action is morally right and still not see why they should perform that action given a deontological position.

Of course you can always criticize what is the ultimate meaning of "good". There are bizarre people who enjoy brutal torture, for example. Consequentialism is helpful only if good can be assessed on simple terms.
Thus the need for an explanation, at least, of what is to count as good. This explanation has, essentially, to be a non consequentialist one, if it is not to suffer regress.

For Deontology though, for all its admirable dogged adherence to a set of principles, the moral basis of these principles themselves are suspect and may initially reflect consequential concerns.

The separation of moral theories into deontological and consequentialist is a shallow one at best. No moral theory can realistically be one or the other, They all contain aspects of both ways of thinking (with the possible exception of Kant's which then ends up being empty of practical content). Even the most rigid religious deontological theory uses consequences as a normative device. Even out and out utilitarianism (Bentham) includes absolute values in the evaluation of the good.

If you pushed a button and killed a million people, you say that is never moral.

Fine.

But by not pushing a button and thus causing 150.5 million people to die, would you be more moral? Will it make you any less guilty to stop the infection when you could?


You assume there is always a moral option. Sometimes there is not. Sometimes given that you must accept the "less immoral" action, or, generally, one that brings about the best good, and the least evil.

Yes, this limitation has been offset by rule utilitarianism, at the expense of any consequentialist content in the moral decision. All rule utilitarianism does is to provide a set of 'rational' rules by which we are supposed to guide our actions. These rules purport to be consequentialist in nature, but that in itself is an impossibility, as the existence of the rules themselves demonstrates. (If we could predict the outcome, we would not need the rule, but we need the rule, so we cannot predict the outcome.)

Having said that, I recognize that moral action is essentially forward looking in its nature. A moral action is one that the agent believes will result in desirable outcomes. If this were not the case the only normative force would be that of the action being moral in itself, which is a major problem for deontological systems. It is quite possible for a person to recognise that an action is morally right and still not see why they should perform that action given a deontological position.


Thus the need for an explanation, at least, of what is to count as good. This explanation has, essentially, to be a non consequentialist one, if it is not to suffer regress.



The separation of moral theories into deontological and consequentialist is a shallow one at best. No moral theory can realistically be one or the other, They all contain aspects of both ways of thinking (with the possible exception of Kant's which then ends up being empty of practical content). Even the most rigid religious deontological theory uses consequences as a normative device. Even out and out utilitarianism (Bentham) includes absolute values in the evaluation of the good.

A good discussion.

*bow*

Considering the drawbacks of either moral system, and since you have read Nietzche, do you agree with nihilism?

You assume there is always a moral option. Sometimes there is not. Sometimes given that you must accept the "less immoral" action, or, generally, one that brings about the best good, and the least evil.

Less immoral because fewer deaths result? This sounds like consequentialism. Now I am so confused. :confused:

Perhaps you would like to consider nihilism?

A good discussion.

*bow*

Considering the drawbacks of either moral system, and since you have read Nietzche, do you agree with nihilism?

Thank you

*returns bow*

I have never quite been able to understand nihilism as a moral system. The denial of there being any truth (of experience and beliefs) leads to the denial of any possibility of the existence of values in any sense. As such nihilism cannot be a moral position in any sense for me. Additionally I draw much of my ethical thinking from the work of Hume and Smith, both of whom place a great deal of emphasis on the physicality of our existence. This is in direct contradiction to a nihilist position.

Essentially I am an ethical naturalist - value and normativity can be explained in terms of facts about human sensibility and there is no need to go beyond this.

Your words your word no changing that if you dont have your word Like in saving privet ryan if you say we dont leave a man behind then dont leave one. As for the other system If innocent people die but the battle is stratigicaly one its a victory I see people as statistics in the words of stalin 1 death is a tragity 1 million a statistic. I agree with this statment.


Its like germany during WW1 defending austra hungry even thought the war was fought for a stupied reason{the Archduke of austra being assasinated} and it lead to the deaths of millions I still think its worth it you must be a person of your word.

I sold my morals, along with my soul. Only twenty more bucks and I can get a car...

OCC sorry i know it dosnt belong but
AB Again
Location: South of the Equator, West of Greenwich, Portuguese speaking country.
Posts: 2,245

Your locations brazil right.

I'm very Nietzschian, in that, I believe morality should only exist so long as it serves a positive role in maintaining society

Consequential ethics.

Consequentialism, I have even argued that killing babies for money could be in some instances moral if enough money was gained and used properly to have more beneficial effects, a million dollars can be very useful for saving lives and considering that for this thought experiment the amount of money is not important, only that it is a lot and can do a lot for advancing any cause. Of course, I usually argue as such just to offer a really really extreme example to throw people off. Ultimately though an action should be judged by its results, moral supremacy means nothing if it leads to destruction. However, that being said, I have adopted some ideas of rule utilitarianism such as the importance of rights(the argument being that preserving them when they seem bad is safer in the long run than the opposite policy), and the need to decentralize power in order to defend from corruption and other poor usage.

Deontological.

Life consists of obedience to variour, and often conflicting, categoric imperatives. Little or no need for any mucking around with 'I feel' or 'my free will'.

Of course there are in-betweens, hybrid systems and other systems, but if you could choose only one system between these two, which moral system do you most agree with?
From those two, I'd go with Consequentialism, but I prefer an Abelardian view of judgement based on intentions rather than actions (where it's possible to know the intentions, of course).

OCC sorry i know it dosnt belong but
AB Again
Location: South of the Equator, West of Greenwich, Portuguese speaking country.
Posts: 2,245

Your locations brazil right.

Sim, é. (Yes, it is.)

I think the question that one asks when it comes to deontological morals is not about good or bad, but one of "would you want to live if you have to do X"? Being able to live a good life ultimately comes down to the choices that one makes in terms of ideas that one accepts or refuses and if they can be bargained away for the sake of one's own life, then they are not really worth much.

Evil actions towards noble goals are evil.