Consequentialism vs. Deontology

[SilverHawk]

I'll bet most of you are consequencial thinkers.
You evaluate whether an action is good or bad by the results it produces.
In other words, the ends justify the means (mostly) in your world.

Enter Immanuel Kant.

He does not agree.
Kant says that actions are either good or bad, regardless of the consequences.
That philosophy is called Deontology.
Kant has several primary principles that he draws up.
Do not lie.
Do not break promises.
Do not kill.
Do not commit suicide.

Then, he has some secondary principles.
Help others.
Always work to better yourself.

To which philosophy to you subscribe? Why?

Here's a nice debate topic. Enjoy!

 

[Father_Yetti]

W.w.i.k.d.

While I do not posit this to be formatted accurately for a debate; it is enthralling enough to have engaged my interest. I am not certain whether it is meant to be tackled blind or with an actual understanding of Categorical Imperative Theory. That being said I’ve come to a comprehension of stated theory yet in my reading have remained unaware of any particular stance Kant might assume in a given scenario. Morality was merely qualified based on an intrinsic value to the individual.

If we propose given only the above information than one might arrive at a completely different conclusion had they an understanding of the ideology involved. Principles: do not lie, do not break promises, do not kill, do not commit suicide, help others, and always work to better yourself. These do not in and of themselves forfeiter any meaning to Kant’s theory. Many consequential thinkers are likely to nominate these exact principles.

As well, “Kant says that actions are either good or bad, regardless of the consequences.” While this defines only that Kant is a Deontological thinker it does not lend purvey to the fact that we are yet left with any qualifying distinctions as to what deems one action good over another, or why. We know only that the consequences are irrelative to criteria. In contrast to an actual working dynamic of Categorical Imperative Theory the consequences prove relative if they play into the standard upon which the decision was made.

Such relativity being not that which defines the morality of the action, but that which clarifies the standard upon what grounds such means are justified. Though Kant doesn’t posit justification; more a measurable climate of morality - in the sense that a decision is either right or wrong - Kant postulates that we are left with a certain level of measurement reflexive upon qualities to the subject.

If we run akin with a consequential prognosis involving two different men acting on different motivations, yet yielding in a sense the same results – i.e. not cheating a mistaken costumer; the costumer is not cheated – One doing it out of duty to his fellow man, the other out of fear for being caught or loss of profits, who then has made the better choice? Are not both equals as the end results are identical?

However Kant claims that he whom acted out of the desire to do well to his fellow neighbor regardless of the consequences stands on the moral high road. There is also something more elegant with Kant’s theory in that even if the justified ends in a consequential rationalist’s views are unattained; the “good” clerk in Kant’s world still has inherit value placed upon his “goodness” while the “bad” clerk has failed to do good.

It is a subject's relative association to their level of duty invoking him to do good which atones for the moral value of his/her actions. Goodness cannot be attained as an end, nor is it justified by such or it would have no defined value. Could not other means have likewise saved the costumer their money? A merchandising shelf could’ve been toppled over by restless kids, grabbing the attention of the shopper towards the actual and lower price tag having gone previously unnoticed.

So that is why I cannot directly and with confidence answer the presented open ended question. I do not know those things which Kant himself would hold to a higher sense of personal duty: his duty to his country because he was a German, or his duty to his fellow man and the promise he had made them? Kant didn't necessarily believe that the final result was the most important aspect of an action because how the person felt while carrying out the action was the time at which value was set to the result.

Having said that; intuition into human psychology leads me to go out on a foot and say that I think Kant would not disclose the whereabouts of the family he was protecting. One of his principles is to help others and he did this by also making a promise with them first. I believe that based upon how he would feel personally; he would not wish harm upon those he swore to protect. Further, rationalizing this away as an implausible end to one’s actions proves hard for any normal human being.

Sure he would be lying, although he doesn’t have to lie, he could just not disclose the truth. But he himself would be breaking a promise and in addition could find himself in ill contrivance against other core principles of his. He would not be working to better himself as he would be greatly punished and or killed for harboring Jews. But the same could be said for keeping them and getting caught, regardless it's not the end result but the thought process that needs to be dissected.

I guess in the end it would really depend on what kind of man Immanuel Kant was. Being German, this throws yet another variable into the mix. With certainty I know only one thing being that what Immanuel Kant says he would do and would actually do in such a hypothetical situation could be entirely different things.

 

[Amfidamant]

Yetti, with covering eveyrthing liek that, you leave not a lot to debate.

Let's say Immanuel Kant has only these two options:

a) Tell the Germans that that he is hiding the Jews.
b) Tell the Germans that he isn't hiding the Jews

According to his theory, he should follow his rules as far as he can, thus, he would try not to break his rules for the longest period of time, so he would probably tell the truth.

But, as he has made the promise to protect Jews earlier, he should use the option a), as the both options would break his rules, yet, the promise itself is "working" for a longer time, so technically, it has the priority to be saved, so Kant would probably save the Jews.
Also, take in account that he has made a promise to a Jew family, which means, he made the promise to many people, while he would lie to one (well, you could say that he's lying to the whole Nazi reign but that's somewhat too much of philosophy), what means, lying is the less evil thing to do.

Me myself, I'd say the lie and save the Jews.
After all, I disagree with the Nazi point of view.

 

[King TonGoll]

yea well if i was kant, then i would be in a lot of trouble. and i am a nihilist so i don't believe i could be like kant to begin with, i don't believe in right or wrong.

lol

seeing as though right and wrong change from place to place, and seeing as i do not think it is wrong to lie in order to save a life, i go with lie to hitler.

 

[SilverHawk]

Ah, I forgot to take out that question from the original post. The debate is supposed to be on the two different philosophies, not what Kant would do.

I'll just go and remove that from the original post now.

 

[TheDamien]

By belief is that of moral nihilism, but in practice I am very much a consequentialist.

 

[darkRae]

I'm more to consequentialist.
I think about the damage done more than the action itself.
I can't explain why, but it just happens - that's how I think.

 

[SilverHawk]

I'll play devil's advocate for consequentialism:

There's so much more gray area in this view compared to deontology. Who decides what are good consequences vs. bad ones? Furthermore, how can it be ensured that one doesn't overlook some consequences?

This, however, occurs significantly less in deontology.

Discuss.

 

[esb]

I think people decide if something is good/bad on how it would affect them in their benefit (or not).

For example, if you're going to lie, you know it's bad to lie, but the outcome would be "good" for you because you get out of trouble (in some cases)

 

[Ninva]

I've been raised as and by consequentialists, but I'm a deontologist. How did that work out?

 

[Father_Yetti]

Yetti, with covering eveyrthing liek that, you leave not a lot to debate.

Well, I was the first to respond to it and at that time, as well as when you replied, it was not set up properly for a debate. That was the first thing I clarified on. I just wanted to open this up for discussion by answering the question that was at the time presented. SilverHawk has since fixed it though I feel this debate is falling short of its aims. No one is backing anything with substance, they are just stating what they think themselves to be.

Just the principles mentioned do not do justice to enlighten one as to what Kant was illustrating. He is considered by some to be one of the greatest philosophers, and at least by many to be one of the greats. I never read up on him or of his theories till I read this post, but I thought it prudent to do so not assuming I could answer intelligently otherwise.

At first, I disagreed with him, but looking a little closer, I would say that I largely agree with Immanuel Kant's philosophy. I think, however that it does not encompass all there is to know on morality, and that much fewer words can say a lot more. This is why I believe the greatest man to ever have spoken did so in parables.

I do want to respond to SilverHawk' last post, though I don't have time to reapply myself entirely to the new direction this thread is taking. If you read my original post you'll see that what he antagonizes here is precisely one of the distinctions begging consideration that I mentioned. I don't think he knew it all, but Immanuel Kant was willing to look a lot more closely at how morality should be defined, and I have to say that for the most part I agree with deontology.

EDIT===========>>>>>Are we ever going to hear what Kant's take on this is? I know that the format in the original post has changed, but I would still like to know what Kant would do.

 

[Father_Yetti]

I know that the debate layout for this has been altered, but I would still like to know what Kant's response would have been to the original question? Please provide the answer if you have one.

Thanks,

Yetti