In all the ethics courses I have taken, deontology has reined supreme:”The Unsound Argument(The Flavors of Objectivism - Divine Command Theory)”:http://unsoundargument.com/index.php/b/2005/06/22/the_many_diffrent_flavors_of_objectivism. Consequentialism is always seen as the easy way out for the morally weak. However, it seems to be practiced by just about everyone:”Hundie dot Com(Minimizing Evil on the Left and the Right)”:http://hundiejo.com/archives/index.php?itemid=341.
I must admit a certain appeal that Consequentialism holds over me. It’s most common form is Utilitarianism, which combines hedonism with Consequentialism. At the surface, Utilitarianism is unsatisfactory. It seems absurd that mere maximization of pleasure is the basis for right behavior.
However, at the surface, Deontology is also unsatisfactory. It seems that consequences do matter. The rules for Kant are iron-clad and meant to be made in a vacuum. However, no such moral vacuum exists. All choice happens in a context. It is due to this context that we must allow Consequentialism in the door to help us.
Most attacks on Consequentialism are really attacks on what measure of good the particular flavor of Consequentialism is being combined with. The easiest example is Utilitarianism, which tries to maximize the amount of pleasure in the world. Utilitarianism is criticized by calling to attention that just because something maximizes the pleasure, it is not necessarily a good act. For example, suppose that the murder of 20 people would result in the happiness of 100,000,000 people.
However, Consequentialism does have its merits. A lie told to save a life, for example is often seemed to be noble. If not, expand it further. Imagine for a moment that you are living in a totalitarian state. The police are exterminating all people of a particular decent, let’s call them the Plates. A family of 20 are hiding in you basement. The police come and ask you if you are harboring any Plates. You lie, which under a deontology is a morally impermissible act, but you save the 20 Plates. Clearly you used Consequentialism to evaluate the situation and determine the correct course of behavior. Your duty not lie was usurped by your duty not to allow the deaths of innocent people. It is from this example I want to glean my proposal.
I want to see if we can use deontology as the good we are trying to maximize via Consequentialism.
You can substitute most any rule-based ethic theory for deontology here. I could have easily used Divine Command Theory instead, but I want to avoid all arguments on the dictation.
Under my proposal all universal rules hold. However, we use Consequentialism to break ties and order possible acts. Consider the following:
A-1
- W and w are wrong acts on their own (deontology).
- There are only two choices w and W in situation X.
- W has worse consequences than w.
- We have a duty to chose w over W in situation X (Consequentialism)
- Therefore, the choice of w over W is a Re .
How is this possible? How can a w be an R? It is only R relative to a W. That means that the moral status of an act is tied to its situation. I want to liken this to the relativity of motion in the natural world. In the realm of moving objects, everything is in motion and there is no “privileged observer” from which one can measure an object’s motion from. Similarly, no choice takes place in a vacuumed. All choices have a context. With the simple addition of the duty to always choose the least wrong action we can modify deontology to be flexible enough to be applied in the real world. In order to avoid confusion of a (w-W) action being confused with a plain r or R, I will use the tern Re.
If the choice of w over W is an Re , like #5 above claims, what does the converse lead to?
A-2
- R and r are right acts on their own (deontology).
- There are only two choices r and R in situation X.
- R has better consequences than r.
- We have a duty to chose R over r in situation X (Consequentialism)
- Therefore, the choice of r over R is a W.
Does this hold? Does it point to a form of altruism?
As much as I am uncomfortable with the idea, I am afraid it does. It seem to restrict our moral liberty by dictating that the “most right and least wrong” action always be taken. Just as we have a duty; that is, we are morally compelled to always choose the lesser of two evils, the same principle, if applied evenly, dictates that must always choose the most right action. This holds, if, and I believe only if, the phrases “most right” and “least wrong” are equivalent. This can only be correct if we are speaking of the opposites, ~most = least and ~right = wrong.
So, what are we left with? We must arrange all choices on a scale as follows:
I use the word choice as a term for a possible action. I don’t use action (what deontology is primarily concerned with) nor result (what Consequentialism is primarily concerned with) because the two are irrevocably connected. The one is the outworking of the other and cannot be separated. It is the choice between to action/result pairs that is of primary concern in ethics.
Deontology; or Divine Command Theory, or Virtue Ethics, or intuitionalism; dictates that if a choice is W/R, but Consequentialism orders the choices and demands that we do the most right or the least wrong. Logically, anyone that holds m . r must also hold the opposite, ~(m . r), which is ~m . ~r. As such, they all for a w over a W act to be R, relative to W over w. There is where the ethical relativism lies.
The Ethical Relativism of modern ethics is a misnomer. For in regular ethical relativity, choices are not held in relation to each other, just that multiple groups of ethical evaluations can be held as equal and opposite authorities at the same time. In real Ethical Relativism, each choice is assigned a W/R value by deontology. Because no choice is made in a vacuum, it is then ordered by its effects and is assigned a spot on the scale. We add to deontology the role that we must do the most right action. As such, each choice is also measured in relation to the available choices. This difference is the ultimate W/R of the choice. Deontology is the scale and Consequentialism is the greater than / less than operator.
This means that we must do the most good possible, not just good always.