Deontology vs Consequentialism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ค. 2011
- This video takes a look at a recent discussion between a prominent atheist named thunderf00t and a popular Christian named Ray Comfort on the topic of morality.
In this video I explain the difference between the prominent moral stance of deontology and consequentialism. I then present a couple arguments as to how people may not have to choose between one or the other.
People will disagree about what is moral if they fail to factor in all of the relevant variables. It will be like having the wrong math equation and trying to get the right answer. For a related video that explains another way that moral disagreement can occur, follow this link:
• Morality, Economics, a...
12 years and this is gold
Thanks for this video. Just started studying Philosophy and you've really helped me to get an understanding of these concepts.
2:13 - 2:22 - Objection, your honor. As I believe TBS pointed out, the fact that most humans have innate inhibitions to acts like murder does not mean that this instinct is "knowledge" and that it is true that murder actually is wrong. In short, you have not bridged the gap between subjectivity and objectivity.
The statement, "It is objectively true that people believe P" does not mean that P is true. Nor does it mean that they "recognize that P is true" because that implies that P is true.
You were excellent. I didn't understand it by just reading the lesson, however listening to you added value.
@Abignalessuccessor
The reason I said asked "Whatever benefits the people (and even animals) as a whole is what should be done" is because utilitarian consequentialism doesn't take into account civilians vs soldiers. If killing 99 innocent civilians compared to 100 soldiers equally stopped the war, the act utilitarian would kill the civilians (whether the enemy resulted to such tactics or not).
Great video, I'm studying Deontology in to learn more and this was helpful
Thanks for the video and the use of graphics for us visual learners!
@LennyBound
Deontology is a big category that includes multiple theories. One of theories under that umbrella is divine command theory.
Cosequentialism is also a broad category. It includes not only utilitarianism (which is close to TF's view), but also includes things like hedonism (which I sang a super nerdy song about in a recent video).
@4iner2
I was holding variables constant, you are introducing additional variables. You can just tweak the scenario to eliminate those variables by saying "is it okay to secretly kill 1 stranger to save another".
@MyContext
As Thunderf00t explains, we are hardwired to have a conscience. Conscience being a combo of the words "with" and "knowledge". In other words, we are built "with knowledge" that some things should be done and some things should not. Or in other words... it is self-evident that some things are objectively valuable.
That leads us to figure out the "why", which is "an objective standard of morality must exist".
Actually consequentalists most typically use pleasure and the lack of suffering as the metric by which morality of action is determined, *not* life.
Because of this it is not possible to ignore all psychological factors and simply pick the action which maximizes the human population.
It is the enormous psychological cost, all the suffering that the horrific act of murdering someone brings about, which the consequentialist can use to determine that murdering someone to save another is almost certainly the wrong choice.
Going to jail for many years, probably suffering from PTSD for the rest of your life, losing your job and maybe your family, experiencing all the hatred from people who loved the person you murdered, and having to deal with knowing that you are the one responsible for all the suffering they're going through... these are all factors which one should not forget when practicing consequentialism.
Consequentalism is an extremely powerful tool, but unfortunately it isn't quite as straightforward to use as many who only take a casual look at it think, empathy and perception are way more important in these calculations than many people presume. Consequentalism is *not* about turning off all emotions and making cold-hearted calculations, but in fact quite the opposite :)
It's actually Utilitarianism that relies on pleasure and the minimization of pain. Consequentialism refers to the school of normative ethics as a whole, which entails the best results.
I would say that consequentialism is useful in explaining human psychology, but as an ethical principle, I find that it borders on trying too hard to make ethics a science, and that it focuses on the future instead of both the past and future. But hey, that's why I like Virtue Ethics so much! lol.
@@CosmoShidan Yes that is true, all I'm saying is that consequentialists *most typically* use pleasure/suffering as the foundation of their morality and most certainly *not* merely the total number of living beings in existence. I personally at least have never heard about anybody who would hold such a view, so using such a fringe form of consequentialism in an attempt to disprove consequentialism as a whole seems disingenuous (or at the very least insufficient).
The argument that is being made in the video goes like this:
1. The consequentialist typically argues that life, *or* well-being, usually human life, is the only thing which is objectively valuable.
2. But we can show intuitively that this is not the only thing which should be valued.
3. Can you kill one total stranger to save another total stranger?
4. Since murder and refraining from murder has *the same consequence* the consequentialist would deem this action to be morally neutral.
5. So there must be more at play than just consequences.
6. And that's how we can determine that the principle of not murdering must also carry some value.
He makes it sound like he is intuitively disproving all forms of consequentialism (even mentioning well-being when talking about the typical consequentialist), yet then he only goes on to argue against a very short-sighted and limited form of consequentialism (which probably almost nobody believes in to begin with). Then he claims that this somehow indicates that "there must be more at play than just consequences", when he has only considered an extremely narrow subset of all the consequences. And then he makes yet another logical leap in claiming that this somehow shows that the principle of not murdering must be the only logical answer here.
@@nasterofpuppets Here's a question for consequentialism, is it possible that if the agent maximizing the greatest good for the best results could actually be doing it at the expense of their own humanity? What if consequentialism entails a form of savoir complex? That forgoing one's own well-being may do more harm than help?
Let's say that you run a charity in India, which entails giving used cloths from the United States, but the act given by a moral agent X results in preventing Indians in destitute from learning how to weave and sow their own cloths and they grow dependent on X's charity? And what would happen if any attempt to try to convince X to change entails fanaticism?
@@CosmoShidan Those are awesome questions to ask - you're thinking of exactly the same kind of questions that a good consequentialist should :)
I think that taking your own well-being into consideration is super important when trying to figure out what is the most ethical thing to do in a given situation. The classic Trolley problem, as cliché as it may be, I think highlights really well how just one's own perception of an action they're taking can have a huge effect of how it makes them feel emotionally; turning a switch to save five people while causing someone's death feels like the right thing to do for most people, while pushing someone in front of train to save five people feels much more disgusting and horrible.
In my experience many people that harshly criticize utilitarianism fail to really understand that human emotions are not left out of the equation when we try to estimate what is the best action to take. In fact, human emotions are the only thing that matters to us when it comes to ethics, the very thing that determines what action is the best one to take.
I also think that thinking deeply about the consequences of giving money to charities is well worth the effort, because not all charities are created equal. I'm of the view that using scientific data to try and identify the charities with the greatest cost effectiveness and focusing most of our money on those would result in a better world than just giving money on a whim to whatever charities we stumble upon. Why would you donate a huge chunk of your disposable income to something like renovating a museum, if you could use the same money to save the lives of dozens of human beings in dire need of help?
Btw, the example you chose for the charity dilemma reminds me a bit about the common misconception that saving lives in poor countries is unethical because it leads to overpopulation:
th-cam.com/video/obRG-2jurz0/w-d-xo.html
Not saying there's anything inherently wrong with your example, but just wanted to point out that sometimes it might feel intuitive that doing X might lead to Y, but scientific data actually points to it being the other way around :)
Your dilemma about trying to convince somebody pushing them into fanaticism is also very interesting to me. I don't know if you've ever heard of street epistemology, but I find it quite fascinating how the way you approach a discussion can have a huge effect on how effectively you're able to get somebody to really consider what you're saying and be open to changing their mind. Getting into a heated argument with somebody could lead them into gripping even harder onto their own world view, while taking the time to listen to them and then asking thought-provoking but respectful questions could have the opposite effect.
@@nasterofpuppets Thank you for the reply!
That's a lot to unpack, but I'll give my two cents.
The thing about the trolley dilemma, it's actually a virtue ethics argument which criticises both deontology and consequentialism, because one is too focused on the individual, but the other concentrates too much on the group, or so it appear to be so. In short, the virtue ethics side of things would argue that we would have to take elements from both sides of the equation.
I thank you for the video, though, I'm a little skeptical of your example though, because that isn't the answer I'm looking for. But, I doubt the claims of overpopulation, not because of the effectiveness of charities, but because I believe charities are by design, are part of the capitalist system to prevent developing countries from rising up. I recommend looking at this video on the science of sociology, specifically about world systems theory, and it's primary concept, dependency theory: th-cam.com/video/79gCqjl6ihQ/w-d-xo.html
As for street epistemology, I haven't heard of it! Thanks for the heads up! :)
@Gnomefro
I am not trying to decipher "what do we value" but rather "what ought we value". Both deontology and consequentialism fall into the category of "normative ethics", which means they deal with what we ought to do rather than just with what we actually do.
@balanceseeker
It isn't a question about our innate reactions. It is a question about proximity, exposure, the emotional reaction of our peers, and about our difficulty grasping large numbers. Most people are also more intimately aware of Dhamer than Darfur.
Is there a way in which there could be a link between the VW scandal and Deontology? If there is please enlighten me broadly... I have a a presentation coming up at school based on ethics and I will love to use theory.
+Lindokuhle Dubazane
Making a fake emissions device is wrong because it causes harm - consequentialism.
Making a fake emissions device is wrong because it violates a set of rules or principles - deontology.
@colossus999
In your view, principles only have value insofar as they bring about consequences. So is it morally good to secretly kill one random person to save 2 random people?
@balanceseeker
I agree w/ socrates a bit. However, I am arguing we have innate knowledge of moral values, not moral conclusions. We can tell that certain things are objectively valuable, not how those objective values are weighted. More will be explained in the next vid.
Part 4: Consequentialist ethics forms the foundation of the Legal system - the Legal System does not care whether if someone's actions is inherently right and wrong on any form of ethical angle, it judges people's actions in accordance to laws that was agreed on. The Legal system keeps society in line not by proclaiming the existence of inherent right and wrong but ensure the certainty of punishment for anyone who break laws. And in its way, it largely worked.
Conflicting intuitions is the most common argument against the realiability of our intuitions.
I have about three videos on that topic. The first counterargument I give is found in a vid called "the argument from disagreement".
@Epydemic2020 If you argue for objective moral facts, what are they if not an abstract reality? The two are intrinsically linked...
Damn good video. I can see you worked hard to make things as clear as possible.
@squirrelywrath2
The reasoning doesn't tell us it is wrong, it just tells us it usually has costs and we would like to avoid those costs. That type of reasoning doesn't lead us to "this is wrong" or "I ought not do this". It just leads us to "given the costs and benefits, I personally don't want to do that".
@VyckRo
I think culture shapes our perspective. It is kinda like a lens through which we see reality. You might like this little demonstration of the importance of perspective.
You should type in "liar face" into google and click the first link. I think you will figure it out from there, although you may have to look at the pic at different angles/perspectives to fully appreciate it.
idk who you are but this video saved me when I was trying to figure out what to write about for an essay in my ethics class. thank you sm (citing this video in mla format, of course)
That's awesome. I'm actually an ethics professor now lol.
@jagmarz
Interestingly there seems to be "reason, intuition, and emotional factors".
I am not really including the emotional factors here. Emotions give us incentives to act, but they don't tell us which actions are good or bad.
Marc Hauser did some interesting work in this area, he found that people base their decision making on subconscious moral principles. That principles like "the principle of unintended harm" factor into peoples moral judgements without their conscious knowing.
@RuinSonic
That is really interesting. You presented a common critque of applying the theory of cosequentialism called "the epistemic problem" (the idea that we can't/don't know what will bring about good consequences) and then you advocated a position called "rule utilitarianism".
I hope to do a video touching on rule utilitarianism soon, I think it is actually self-refuting unfortunately.
Your view is very practical tho, despite what I see to be a problem in principle.
Great video. I am currently studying the moral argument.
@MyContext
You don't need to have a pursuit to have an ought unless you are using the term in a merely pragmatic sense, which I am not.
Interesting and thoughtful video.
In consequentialism when any real life situation is fully considered and all the effects on all the possible parties, both at the time and in the future is fully analysed there will be no results that seem intuitively incorrect.
Our intuitive understanding of right and wrong has been bred in us through generations of consequentialism.
Thanks for the kind words :)
I think the intuitions that come built into humanity (like the doctrine of double effect) are often not consequentialist at all.
I agree with you completely on this. The methodology of constructing those moral philosophies tends to be unsubstantiated, though the foundations AND results are nearly indistinguishable.
We generally see shared objective goals with subjective disagreement about how to get there. The biggest REAL issue is in the establishment of an applicable foundation. Without a foundation, the method and the result are meaningless.
Consequenatilism refers to maximizing a consequence.
Rule utilitarianism focuses on adhering to a rule that will likely maximize a particular consequence to the best of our ability.
The moment you posit knowledge of particular actions (actions that may violate a rule which would generally maximize happiness) you find an explicit contradiction. You must violate the rule (after all, you only follow the rules in the first place because they are thought to ultimately maximize good consequences).
I have one criticism of your theory how do we determine what value to attribute to values.
@FiverBeyond
Interesting example. I think intuition has something to say about your example as well. Marc Hauser (evolutionary pyshologists) happened across an intuitive principle called "the principle of unintended harm". Apparently, it we subconsciously recognize a difference between killing people as a means to an end, and killing them as an unintended side effect of an otherwise neutral means.
@Epydemic2020
I think you're right, and this is one of the trickiest concepts in morality: whether there is a substantial difference between allowing harm or actively producing it. If you've heard the common example of pulling a switch to divert a train car away from several bystanders, but towards one unlucky fellow, it's the same problem and concept.
@MyContext
IF you look closely, I am not arguing that we "do" value things, but arguing that we "recognize we should" value things. That is why I arguing for a conscience, not a compulsion.
If we recognize that we should value certain things, that informs us that those things are objectively valuable.
What's the difference between the mathematical approach proposed by this video, and Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism?
Bentham believes that only pleasure is good and only pain is evil. So his "moral calculus" (which we call the "hedonic calculus") measures only "hedons" or "units of pleasure".
If I made a mathematical approach to morality, I would personally try to give more things than just "pleasure" points. For Bentham increasing pleasure and avoiding pain is the only consideration which matters.
@johnnyp76
It depends what you mean by abstract reality. If you mean abstract reality as in "abstract ideas" or "abstract concepts" or even plato's version of "The Good" then we are not on the same page. If you just mean something like "immaterial" or "nonphysical" then I would be on board.
A dissertation on dialectical anachronism; by Grisha Tversky:
The fundamental aspects and particularities of deontology vs consequentialism parrots the dichotomy that of Hegel’s dialectical idealism vs Marx’s dialectical materialism. It is very interesting to see how all of it boils down to theory vs practice over and over again while reaching conclusions that are simply incrementally different from the previous and would eventually lead to a conclusion later on that is in a completely different position than that of the reality that was present before the theory vs practice ping-pong-game-like way of bouncing certain hypotheticals and the viable ways to bring them about, slowly, over time, in one’s own mind. Personally, I view myself as some sort of very peculiar strand of free-market Anarchist that has tried to fuse various different philosophical aspects of the various different ‘political ideologies’ on the ‘politigram’ version of the “political compass.” I more or less am on the path of trying to find some sort of way to reconcile all of the various differences and potentially irreconcilable beliefs (from a superficial view) between all of the ideological political/economic theories of the bottom six rows of both the “Left” and “Right” “quadrants” of such a chart. Essentially, such an overarching system would be one that allows people who refer to them as Anarcho-Communists, all of the various types of Mutualism and Left-wing market Anarchism, and Anarcho-Capitalism to be able to have their own type of economic self-determination and get along. Now, an interesting thing about ‘Anarcho-Capitalism’ is that it is a very misunderstood ideology due to the various proponents of such a concept not understanding the inherently symbiotic relationship of deontology vs consequentialism, which is why so many Leftists Anarchists bring up bastards like Hans-Hermann Hoppe and a so-so figure such as Murray Rothbard, but then when you try and counter them, it becomes very clear that David D. Friedman, a consequentialist, is the right figure to bring up since he understands history and critiques the mistakes of other AnCaps and, in my mind, he is a real Anarchist (despite myself being something similar to the Left-wing market Anarchism of Gary Chartier, someone who’s theories I am in dire need of reading). The reason I say this is because he is able to understand the history of Anarchism and also the history of the world and he is intellectually honest enough to reconcile these things together. Essentially, it boils down to a very dialectical way of viewing anachronism, which is where I came up with the term “dialectical anachronism” (I have also considered the term “dialectically anachronistic realism,” but that is far too long and such jargon shouldn’t be used when trying to explain such a concept simply). That is more or less what the dialectical synthesis between Hegelian idealism and Marxist materialism boils down to.
The way I have come to this conclusion was essentially:
1. Paying attention to how the advent of the rise of technological innovation has lead to the dissemination of information in our society to become extremely decentralized.
2. Understanding that looking at simple memes such as the “political compass” has more or less an effect of being able to cement fundamental aspects of the various different relative ideologies that are on a chart with two diametrically perpendicular axes, both ends being labeled various different terms that could more or less be seen as very arbitrary and vary false dichotomies or be seen as an actual way to look at them in completely relative and comparative ways.
3. Finding out how a lot of young people, namely Gen Z and Millennials, are comparing each other’s results of said political test online, particularly TikTok and Twitter.
4. Realizing that the politigram one is the most advanced version, albeit probably still needs some tweaking to be as accurate as it can possibly be.
5. Realizing that there is more power in numbers and that trying to become allies with those that don’t always agree with us is a good way to start working towards creating real change.
6. Asking ourselves what that change is. Personally, I want to see the size and power of governments shrink down to a much smaller size and the only people I know that would like that are the bottom couple of rows on this chart of political ideologies, regardless of how “far-Left” or “far-Right” they might be within those rows.
7. From here, I had to ask myself “What are the differences between all of these various different ideologies and how could I possibly devise a system that would allow them to coexist and not force their agenda on others?” I devised a system that I refer to as ‘Voluntaryism,’ but I will cover that in another essay.
8. Asking myself how I can get both young and not-so-young people online who disagree with each other on various issues to come together and work towards a common goal that they all have for right now and how I can get them to stop trying to “debate” and “debunk” each other by trying to find out who is right and instead have healthier discourse about what is right.
9. Ultimately, I finally realized that the method of discourse necessary to bring about real change was referred to as “dialectics,” and from there I did my own research and find out that if dialectics is simply about trying to find a way to reconcile seemingly irreconcilable beliefs, positions, elements, etc. and that dialectical idealism and dialectical materialism were opposite to each other, then what would happen if we were to break down either concepts into smaller aspects and try to see how we can reconcile some of those aspects.
In conclusion, I realized that it’s about how to think and do towards the next step on a long list of steps towards an end goal. Thinking and believing is good, but that doesn’t do anything if you translate those thoughts and beliefs into actions, but actions can have negative consequences if you don’t think before you act. A healthy balance between thoughts, actions, and the an understanding of the consequences of said actions and how they all relate throughout various points in time can bring about the change that you want if you are simply patient enough to talk to others, listen to what they have to say, and do the work towards real change. This method can be applied towards any various “direction” on this “political compass.” Personally, I hope it goes towards all over the bottom of the chart over a century or two, but if I am not careful and I am not realistic about how the incremental change necessary is implemented, it could end up being a disaster. This is why I am trying to work on myself when it comes to thinking and doing, which I have a lot of work to do before I get good at it.
Our value hierarchies combined with our scope of knowledge ultimately determine what we perceive to be right/wrong. The twisted thing about individual value notions - we may not see the individuals notions, but their notions of what is an acceptable notion and thus we get the appearance of consensus on many notions.
@FiverBeyond
That is exactly how Marc Hauser came across the principle of untintended harm, by using the train car dilemma. That is pretty cool you came about it in almost the same way.
People recognize a difference between pushing a man in front of a train to save people, and pulling a switch (which happens to kill a person) to save people, even though they are usually not able to explain why they view the two scenarios as different.
Quite interesting stuff IMO.
@squirrelywrath2
You had said "certain things were wrong for more simple reasons ex: I do not want people to steal my stuff, so lets agree to not take each others stuff "
In that you have two examples, a personal desire that you have (your desire for people not to steal from you) and a social contract (the "let's agree not to take each other's stuff" part). Unfortunately, in opposition to your quote above neither personal desire nor social contract alone can account for why something is wrong.
@colossus999
Life/wellbeing is what I said, not just life.
The most popular consequentialist view is utilitarianism, and the greatest happiness principle is another way of saying the same thing I just did.
I'm glad you liked it :)
@janitarjanitar
I am still arguing for objective morality (right and wrong answers to moral questions) but I am just arguing that morality needs to factor in circumstances rather than rely on blanket statements.
@polymath7
If the two choices are truly equally unpleasant, then either action is permissible. However, in most moral dilemmas it is more likely that one alternative is concistent with one value, and the other alternative is consistent with a different value. The reason we consider it a dilemma at all is because it is difficult to determine which value trumps the other (in other words we don't know which choice is truly the most undesirable.) If we did know, then we wouldn't be a in dilemma.
Ok, now it seems we're in agreement (note the modifier "ostensibly"). I've never seen illustrated any real world scenario or *lucidly* crafted thought experiment that presented what I would consider anything approaching a moral dilemma. If I feel uncertain what course of action should be taken, it absolutely never because I see the slightest difficulty in deciding which value trumps another; but because outcomes are impossible to predict with sufficient certitude.
I see only epistemic horizons.
[cont] on objective morality. People have conflicting intuitions about a variety of topics, and our intuitions can be, in many cases (and making a few epistemic assumptions), demonstrably false. So, although it may seem intuitively obvious that certain things ought to be valued to you, do you really think that this intuition provides a reliable gauge for objective truths? As I said, I fail to see how, but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts nonetheless.
I heard that on a discussion of English which was created as a common language by Sir Francis Bacon. Bacon along with John Dee (007) were advisors to Queen Elizabeth I. Both were spiritualists. Bacon I think started the Rosicrucians and was behind Shakespeare. John Dee was a mathematician and astrologer who invented the famous British navigation instruments and methods.
@aednil
Thanks. I like the point about necessity. I would argue that when you solve a moral dilemma, you are usually left with a necessary evil. However, it can only be a "necessary" evil if there were no other actions that would have better brought about good.
@aednil
I dont think the decision whether or not to wear a blue or white shirt today, or the decision to take the bus vs the train has moral implications.
@kelarael
Ray comfort is silly. However, he may be arguing that in the absence of right and wrong he wouldn't feel obligated to be moral, not in the absence of punishment. Either way, I don't think it is particular relevant what Ray Comfort personally thinks. As I mentioned earlier he already factors in consequences whether he likes it or not.
@InternetPeacemaker
I am glad you liked it.
@danmeast
I think he takes into account both means and ends and brings about "the greater good".
the most clear concept ever, thanks.
Ah, I figured you must have a video along those lines. Will go add it to my watch later list now. :)
They must not have watched Bill Craig debate Sam Harris and completely dismantle his "Moral Landscape" argumentation; the entire debate was in and around this realm of thought. Neither one addresses, as Epydemic alluded to, the real issues which is moral ontology and not moral epistemology or moral semantics. Nice video as usual, keep them coming!
It helped a lot! Even for someone who's not native english speaker this video was very simple to understand... and i really apreciatte that! thanks for the help!!
aw... one sugestion... you should do the same thing using an example to compare Stuart's Mill with Emmanuel Kant's ideal. what do you think?
I think you're right that most people base their morality in a mix of the two ideas. As someone who favors consequentialism, however, I would suggest to this exercise:
Would you agree that, as a principle, allowing someone (via inaction) to die should also factor into the equation? Thus in the neutral example, you would add this 'cost' to the side of inaction. This simplifies the entire equation down to the question: is allowing someone to die just as bad as actively killing them?
Consequentialism deals with maximizing a particular consequence. Something like "the right to choose" doesn't exist in consequentialism. Well, it could exist, but it would only be "instrumental" rather than "intrinsic". Meaning any "right" you can come up with would only be good to the extent it maximizes the consequence you are looking for. The moment you come up with a circumstance where it doesn't do that, we can throw that "right" right out the window.
Thanks, I really liked making this one.
@Epydemic2020 Upon what pursuit do you claim an ought expectation?
As most people realise, deontology becomes problematic when pitted against itself. In other words, when two different consequences come about from action or inaction when both actions are deontologically wrong. Ie the trolley problem. It then defers to consequentialism. Thus moral absolutes do not exist, and it becomes harder to argue objective moral facts. To do this, you have to establish realism and the existence of objective abstracts. Not as easy as you think!
5:26 Are we obligated to follow moral standards? Is this begging the question? Or do we do this as a meta-ethical moral action - ie to achieve a beneficial consequence (such as a soundly functioning society)? Be careful when dropping in really loaded sentences which may seem intuitively fine, but are loaded with your own moral presuppositions.
@nanoduckling
Indeed, but we can hold those consequences constant. For example, if we just argue that you kill them secretly, we avoid the potential negative societal impact.
Not everyone has the same psychological consequences, but even if we did there would still be other ways to hold that variable constant as well. I wasn't trying to make this overly complex, but to have a watertight look at the moral principles in question, you have to hold all variables constant. "ceteris paribus".
Hey Epy, I came across this thought experiment that tests what your normative, ethical position/alignment is:
So you are in a room with three other persons, and a grenade lands in the room. The grenade is about the go off in three seconds and no time to throw it back out, along with the impact which will eventually eliminate everyone in the room. What will you do?
A. You or one of three jumps on the grenade and save everyone else at the cost of self-sacrifice? (Deontology)
B. Throw one of the three others on the grenade and save yourself and two of the others to maximize the well-being of others as yourself? (Utilitarianism)
C. Do absolutely nothing at all, because your own life comes first above others and none do the same thing insofar as they think their lives are all that matter above all others? (Egoism)
So what do you think?
I would do A.
However, it is important to note that a utilitarian can also do A, and an egoist can also do B.
Epydemic2020 Not unless you are an objectivist, a type of egoist that claims altruism is evil and coercion is wrong, then you would do C
What do you think of negative utilitarianism?
The point of the rape analogy is much better made by nozick and his argument about the "utility monster". The strange thing under consequentialism is that as, bentham says, (almost a quote, I can't remember perfectly) "the most abomidable pleasure of the vilest of malefactors in and of itself good".
It is just a theoretical reductio of the notion all pleasure is good (ie pleasure gained from rape, torture, etc). The rape analogy tries to make it, but nozick simply does it better.
@johnnyp76
If you did argue for moral absolutes, I wouldn't recommend trying to establish blanket statements that are categorically wrong, but suggest that we look at a specific action combined with a specific intention and see whether or not that is always wrong.
I am a moral realist, but if I understand your terminology correctly I don't argue for objective abstracts (all I mean by that is that I'm not a moral platonist).
@aednil
That is a good point. If were were omniscient, our moral decisions may be quite different.
@jagmarz The model for decision making, which is closest I have figured out so far, is that ALL decision making is done by the emotional brain -- that oldest part of our brain that first appears in reptiles. Sure, we have a huge cortex around it to rationally analyze the situation, enumerate possible actions and anticipate consequences, but, at least personally, every decision I make is, to my chagrin, emotional
You did a good job of explaning the differences between the two. You have presented new ideas, however. I agree that we can not use just one ethical theory to make ethical decisions. But I belive that a lot of these theory discussion are not useful because people are going to continue to make decisions based upon their personal values and backgrounds, thus discussing it is busy work.
@aednil perhaps i should ad, i think every decision can be seen as a moral decision or even as a dilemma.
@Abignalessuccessor
Is it better to win a war by killing 99 civilians or 100 soldiers?
@wisdominnature7
Ironically, we may be able to blend a bit of virtue ethics in there as well. If honesty is a valuable trait, being honest would be a valuable principle, etc.
The problem I think virtue ethics and consequentialism run into is not explaining what is moral (on occasion), but accounting for why those "virtues" or "consequences" out to be valued.
It is easier to recognize something is moral than to explain why.
@cyphonyx
Interesting point.
" that the lives of the unsaved are infinitely valuable while the lives of the saved are infinitely worthless"
I disagree with this bit tho. There lives are equivalently valuable. It is the decision to change camps which is of infinite value.
@StopFear
It wasn't so much "killing" that either TF or RC believed was wrong. They thought murder was wrong. That is killing within a specific set of circumstances. If you change one variable like that, you are making an entirely different equation, and therefore you might have an entirely different answer.
My main issue with this is how to determine what the values to plug into the formula are. Someone supporting capital punishment (but not indiscriminate killing) will essentially have a variable value for life, based on their personal view of the severity of the individuals crimes or moral failings. But a person who believes capital punishment is inherently wrong will hold hold the same value for every life. Do you kill 2 convicted murderers to save the life of an innocent? Or even, when defending yourself, is it right to take the life of 2 attackers to save YOUR life?
I'm not entirely sure if the use of maths was being suggested as a system of morality in and of itself, but it seems you need a morality system to determine the values of numbers and so math seems more of a way to evaluate situations using the values determined by actual moral systems. You couldn't use it to determine which type of morality is better, either, although you could use it to match your own views to a type of morality.
Very nice introduction to both subjects. I'm curious, as a lot of others seem to be about one thing (sorry if you've been asked something along these lines ad nauseam)... I think quoting you from a comment below will set it up best:
"The idea that certain things ought to be valued is intuitively obvious. For example, 'You ought not kill non-consenting people solely for entertainment.'"
I fail to see how this can be used in (what seemed to me to be) a discussion [cont]
@RuinSonic
As long as you posit that humans are not sure what action will bring about the greatest good, I would agree that rule utilitarianism is a practical way to go about attempting to succeed in achieving happiness. The problem's that actually make rule utilitarianism self-refuting come into play after humans gain knowledge (or if we just posit knowledge in hypothetical moral dilemmas).
@Epydemic2020 If there were NO MINDS (nothing capable of thought) would things still have value?
wow! Thanks a lot for this video! It makes more sense now :) Pls. continue to upload more of your informative videos.
@Epydemic2020 Let's address the core problem...
Does ANYTHING (Love, money, sex, god, people, one's self, etc.) have any inherent value? Why?
RE: Thunderf00t -- Ray Comfort Discussion, Round 2! (1 of 2)
Please pay attention to 5:25: "one (sic) can't make a choice like that",Ray's genes cause him to crash.
Ray Comfort also becomes inconsistent as soon as he enters the discussion: "I meant murder, self defense isn't murder" so he switched to murder.
Ray:"I can't follow your logic"
Ray:"That questions ridiculous"
17:00-17:11 Comfort contradicts himself arrogantly "all killing is wrong"
18:45 - 19:41 Rays arrogance so thick TF distracted
I think that moral thought problems are interesting, but ultimately not very illustrative. A huge component of moral decision making is the emotional content, and that simply cannot be reproduced in a rational setting (or, at least, I can't reproduce it). Questions such as these also have a subtle premise that there's a "right" answer, and that may be the big fallacy of all moral critique. It's always easy to point out why something was wrong.
I am not arguing against anything. I only want to mention that laws are deontological and in modern societies they derive in most cases from thoughts of Consequentialism. So for me Consequentialism is the one to start with. After considering benefits and costs we can define the rules we want to live under and want to have stable for some time. In most cases daily changing laws are as stupid as laws that were made up some thousend years ago and remain until now.
Best comment here. More people should read this before taking positions. One being right does not have to mean the other is wrong.
Arne Lewinski utilitarianism seems to be more primitive to me. it's why leftists, who adopt utilitarian morlaity, tend to lack consistency when applying their morality. for example, they tend to make absolutist arguments against murder of human beings post-beings yet justify the killing of human beings in utero on a utilitarian basis. deontology and moral absolutism seem to be a by-product of our species unique invention of civilisation and it seems religion has evolved as a means of justifying what may appear to be irrational and lacking utility in the short term but being necessary to sustaining a foundation on which universal peace and civilisation is built upon in the long term.
Awesome. I'm glad you got something from it.
@Gnomefro
"Take your 1 for 1 murder example and rephrase it as saving your girlfriend and suddenly your moral reasoning would change radically while other people's might not."
It doesn't make it moral to kill the stranger in this scenario. You may want to kill them, but unless you rationalize your desires then you won't conclude it is moral.
@timeofwonder2009
I usually set up this dilemma as "is it acceptable to secretly harvest the organs of one homeless person to save a Ceo?"
The key to solving a dilemma is holding as many variables as you can constant. If you change one variable, you create an entirely new moral dilemma.
@Epydemic2020 As I said before, I could cite many more such examples, including those that do not fit with the awareness factor. But, I want to hone in on two other points.
First, isn't the emotional reaction of peers exactly what I am talking about? I didn't say it was rational, just intuitive.
Second, regardless of how hard it is to grasp large numbers, we should still be more outraged at the loss of larger number of lives, right? (cont.)
Part 2: From an utility/practical angle, this suggests that consequentialism could be considered the most effective/efficient way of guiding Human morality as it appeals to the Human needs to acquire benefit and avoid loss. This translates to acquiring reward for 'benevolent' deeds and avoiding punishment for 'malevolent' actions (Continued)
@xknowledgeisfreex
"Right, but if it's not an universally shared value that should inform us how we ought to behave, then what else?"
If the is-ought gap is right, then universally shared value cannot account for oughts.
I would argue that oughts are not derived from is-statements at all. I hold to a position called ethical intuitionism.
@Epydemic2020 It is NOT a mind-independent duty to act a certain way. It is totally dependent upon mind. If we cannot claim that it is dependent upon a mind, the tenuous claim to free-will that many hold is totally broken.
So, how is it a mind-independent duty to act a certain way?
@gyntaf
Thanks :) I actually just enrolled in a bioethics course myself.
@Epydemic2020 Upon what grounds would one have an ought. If I want X, I ought to do Y - Is my understanding. Whether I do it or not is another matter...
i'll reply to this by video over the weekend, time permitting.
A mixture can also be called "threshold deontology". They are similar but not identical. I personally think rule utilitarianism has some fatal flaws in principle, but some benefits in practice. For example. following general rules (rather than attempting to maximize utility by making exceptions everytime you think the general rule *might* fail) may actually be the best method to maximize utility in the long run.
@johnnyp76
I'd argue the trolley problem deals with deontology and consequentialism.
We recognize a moral difference between "using a person as a means to save others" and "saving others with the foreseen but unintended side effect of killing someone". It's not just a numbers game.
I find it quite easy to argue for objective moral facts and see little reason to argue for moral absolutes. If you did argue for moral absolutes..continued
@brianthemayan
I thought about that too. I think there is a difference between subjective and objective value. For example, two strangers may be objectively the same value. If one of those people is my family member, they would still be objectively equivalent in value to the stranger, but subjectively I would weight the family member as more valuable.
The situation where you imagine 1 person being killed to save the life of another is only superficially one where the consequences of acting and not acting are identical. If you take empathy to be the guiding factor, actively killing someone will have another consequence, namely psychological distress (death < death+distress). A similar thought experiment compares killing one person to harvest their organs to save lives of several others, but consequences would be perpetual fear of doctors, etc.
Excellent, great explanation of structure rather than substance.
@Epydemic2020 As a categorical thing...no... However, individually yes... and effectively from a group perspective a consensus of varying degrees of acceptance. The factors that are generally agreeable are issues of harm, consent, are personal freedoms. An action is generally considered acceptable if it harms no one and affects no property or person without consent - this is acceptable to most people. Those who want to impose their notions haven't considered other's notions imposed on them.