- Joined
- May 6, 2020
Let me start with some basic definitions:
Consequentialism argues that it is the consequences of an action that determines the morality of a situation. In extreme cases, this could look like killing one person to save the life of hundreds. The argument being that, if doing something which is "bad" on paper would result in a better world overall, it is better to do the "bad" thing than to do nothing at all. Conversely, doing something with good intentions (like giving a poor man money) that results in a negative outcome (like him using that money to buy a weapon to kill an innocent man) puts you in the wrong. This is a standard of morality holds the actor responsible for the consequences of his actions; intention be damned.
Potential criticism: You can do the same action and have different results. For example, a factory worker could push the wrong button at the wrong time. This could result in anything between "a minor fuckup, but no big deal" to "you just inadvertently killed everyone on the factory floor." In either case, it was the same fucking thing you did. But in the first you just kinda goofed and the second means you have several deaths on your hands. Hell, that accidental button press could even result in something totally new and innovative that revolutionizes the industry. Can you really ascribe a different moral value to the same fucking action if the results are different?
Deontology is precisely the opposite in that it more rule/duty based. An extreme of this worldview would be that killing someone is wrong regardless of results. If that man's survival results in the death of others, you would still not be in the right to kill that man. Though it may be preferable that you take non-lethal action like detainment in order to prevent the deaths from happening. A famous example of this sort of argument being played out was when Kant (a deontologist) was asked if it's okay to lie to a man who's asking where your children are and expresses desire to kill them. He said it wasn't, but it is perfectly fine to tell the would-be murderer to fuck off, lock the door, and call the police. This standard holds that immoral actions are immoral, consequences be damned.
Potential criticism: Such a black-and-white standard for morality results in a sort of "crippling" of the righteous to the benefit of the evil. If good men are not granted pardon for doing "bad" things in order to prevent worse things from happening, those willing to do bad will have much greater freedom to do as they please
I'm not even scratching the surface here. I'm blowing the dust off to reveal a surface to scratch at and I would highly encourage a deeper discussion on the nuances of these two extremes.
Consequentialism argues that it is the consequences of an action that determines the morality of a situation. In extreme cases, this could look like killing one person to save the life of hundreds. The argument being that, if doing something which is "bad" on paper would result in a better world overall, it is better to do the "bad" thing than to do nothing at all. Conversely, doing something with good intentions (like giving a poor man money) that results in a negative outcome (like him using that money to buy a weapon to kill an innocent man) puts you in the wrong. This is a standard of morality holds the actor responsible for the consequences of his actions; intention be damned.
Potential criticism: You can do the same action and have different results. For example, a factory worker could push the wrong button at the wrong time. This could result in anything between "a minor fuckup, but no big deal" to "you just inadvertently killed everyone on the factory floor." In either case, it was the same fucking thing you did. But in the first you just kinda goofed and the second means you have several deaths on your hands. Hell, that accidental button press could even result in something totally new and innovative that revolutionizes the industry. Can you really ascribe a different moral value to the same fucking action if the results are different?
Deontology is precisely the opposite in that it more rule/duty based. An extreme of this worldview would be that killing someone is wrong regardless of results. If that man's survival results in the death of others, you would still not be in the right to kill that man. Though it may be preferable that you take non-lethal action like detainment in order to prevent the deaths from happening. A famous example of this sort of argument being played out was when Kant (a deontologist) was asked if it's okay to lie to a man who's asking where your children are and expresses desire to kill them. He said it wasn't, but it is perfectly fine to tell the would-be murderer to fuck off, lock the door, and call the police. This standard holds that immoral actions are immoral, consequences be damned.
Potential criticism: Such a black-and-white standard for morality results in a sort of "crippling" of the righteous to the benefit of the evil. If good men are not granted pardon for doing "bad" things in order to prevent worse things from happening, those willing to do bad will have much greater freedom to do as they please
I'm not even scratching the surface here. I'm blowing the dust off to reveal a surface to scratch at and I would highly encourage a deeper discussion on the nuances of these two extremes.
