Denotology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology)

Deontology (Greek: "deon" means "duty") is a theory in ethics, where one has an unchanging duty to abide by some set of moral principles, and nothing else. Thus, the ends never justify the means in this ethical system. If someone were to do his or her moral duty, then it would not matter if it had negative consequences. Therefore, consequentialism is the philosophical opposite of this theory.

Contrasted with consequentialist moral theories

Deontological theories of morality are frequently contrasted to consequentialist theories, such as utilitarianism. While deontological moral theories typically hold that certain actions are either forbidden or wrong per se, consequentialist theories usually maintain that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the consequences of the act, and hence on the circumstances in which it is performed.

As described by John Rawls, the distinction is between the right and the good: under deontology, what actions are right and what things are good are at least partially independent, whereas under consequentialism, an act is right if, and only if, it maximises the good.

Another way of distinguishing consequentialism and deontology, as done by Shelly Kagan, is to note that, under deontology, individuals are bound by constraints (such as the requirement, not to kill), but are also given options (such as the right not to give money to charity, if they do not wish to). Strict consequentialism recognises neither - instead, one must maximise the good by any and all means necessary. (But contrast this viewpoint with "satisficing", which observes that individuals do not always seek to maximise, but rather can be satisfied with sub-optimum goods.)

Aretaic theories often maintain that "character", as opposed to actions or their consequences, should be the focal point of ethical theory. An example is virtue ethics, which tries to describe what characteristics, a virtuous person has.

Examples of deontological theories

The most famous deontological theory is that advanced by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Kant's theory included the idea of a categorical imperative. The two expressions of the categorical imperative are: "Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings", and "Always act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, as an end in itself, never as a means only." One example of a contemporary deontological moral theory is the contractualism developed by the American philosopher, Thomas Scanlon.

 

Consequentialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism)

(See article on Utilitarianism)

Consequentialism is the belief that what ultimately matters in evaluating actions or policies of action are the consequences that result from choosing one action or policy rather than the alternative.

Defining consequentialism

Following Broome (Weighing Goods: Equality, Uncertainty and Time, Blackwell,1991), it is common to hold that a moral theory counts as Consequentialism if and only if it fulfils two conditions:

(1) Teleology

Consequentialism is teleological due to its goal-oriented nature. It focuses on the outcomes of actions, placing emphasis on the ends over that of the means. In other words it is concerned with final causes.

(2) Agent-neutrality

Consequentialism is agent-neutral as it holds that value is a 1-place predicate of the form "x is valuable" as opposed to the 2-place predicate "x is valuable for Y". In other words, no specific person (or agent) is considered to be of more or less worth than any other. All agents are treated equally under consequentialist theories, and the person applying the theory is no exception (and therefore can't favor themselves over others).

This leaves open 2 questions:

(3) What is valuable or good (4) The precise relationship between goodness and rightness

Taking Hedonistic-Utilitarianism as our example of a Consequentialist moral theory it holds (1) because it holds that right actions stem from the goodness of consequences. It holds (2) by taking the goodness receieved by agents to hold equal weight, irrespective of their identity. It answers (3) by claiming that pleasure is good and, finally, it answers (4) by saying that the relationship is a "maximising" one as right actions are those which maximimse the good (pleasure).

Varieties of consequentialism

Consequences for whom

Kinds of consequentialism--in a broad sense of "consequentialism" that not all philosophers would countenance--can be distinguished by the subject who is supposed to enjoy the consequences. That is, one might ask "Consequences for whom?"

Ethical / Moral Egoism can be understood as individualist consequentialism according to which the consequences for the agent herself are taken to matter most. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, can be understood as collectivist consequentialism according to which the consequences for some large group (humanity perhaps, or all sentient beings) are of the greatest moment.

These views, while both consequentialist, can be in stark contrast. Individualist consequentialism may license actions which are good for the agent, but are deleterious to general welfare. Collectivist consequentialism may license actions that are good for the collectivity but deadly for individuals. A conciliatory approach is to acknowledge the tension between an agent's interests as an individual and as a member of various groups, seeking to optimize among all of them. In other words, it can be meaningful to speak of an action as being good for me as an individual but bad for me as a citizen of my town.

Some would say that we should not limit our consideration to the interests of moral agents. For example, some environmentalists seem to take the entire environment or ecosystem to be the relevant patient of consequences. The entire universe might be the subject, the best action being the one that brings the most value into the universe, whatever that value might be.

One idea suggested as a middle course between 'genuine egoism' and 'genuine altruism' is ethical fitnessism, which claims that the fittest behaviour is right.

What kinds of consequences

Another way to divide consequentialism is by the kind of consequences that are taken to matter most. The most popular form of consequentialism is hedonic consequentialism, according to which a good consequence is one that produces net pleasure, and the best consequence is one that produces more net pleasure than any of the alternatives. Closely related is eudaimonic consequentialism, according to which full, flourishing happiness (which may or may not be the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure) is the aim. Hedonism is closely related.

One might, however, fix on some non-psychological good as the preferred consequence of actions. For instance, certain ideologies seem to be consequentialist with regard to material equality or political liberty, regarding gains in these things as desirable in themselves, regardless of other consequences.

One might also adopt a beauty consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. Similarly, one might find nothing of greater gravity than the production of knowledge.

One can also assemble packages of goods, all to be promoted equally. Since in this case there is no overarching consequence to aim for, conflicts between goods are to be adjudicated not by some ultimate consequentialist principle, but by the fine contextual discernment and intuition of the agent.

Consequentialism contrasted with other moral theories

Consequentialism is often contrasted with deontology. However, this may be mistaken. Many forms of consequentialism at bottom are deontological, demanding that we simply have a duty to produce a certain kind of consequence, whether or not that kind of consequence personally moves us. And even paradigmatic deontological theories, such as Kant's, do not disregard consequences entirely. For instance, one might argue that for Kant, the more expression of rational nature, or the good will, the better. It is difficult to find a theory that posits an intrinsic good (such as the good will in Kant) in which it is not better to have more of the intrinsic good. A more fundamental distinction is between theories that demand that agents act for ends in which they have some personal interest and motivation (actually or counterfactually) and theories that demand that agents act for ends perhaps disconnected from their interests and drives.

Consequentialism can also be contrasted with aretaic moral theories such as virtue ethics. Once again, one must be careful. Consequentialist theories can consider character in two ways: (1) Effects on character are consequences. (2) A consequentialist theory can ask the question, "What kind of virtues will produce the best consequences?" There can be a difference, however. Whereas consequentialist theories, by definition, posit that consequences of action should be the primary focus of moral theories, aretaic moral theory insists that character rather than the consequences of actions should be the focal point.

Bibliography

                                 Samuel Scheffler, The Rejection of Consequentialism: A Philosophical Investigation of the Considerations Underlying Rival Moral Conceptions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) ISBN 0198235119.

                                 Consequentialism and Its Critics, edited by Samuel Scheffler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988) ISBN 0198750730.

                                 Consequentialism, edited by Stephen Darwall (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002) ISBN 0631231080.

 
 

Ethics Home Page

Department of Communication, Seton Hall University