In today‘s class, Dr. J mentioned Immanuel Kant‘s essay, in which he explains, why consequences cannot be the base on which we built a theory of morals. Because I haven‘t read it so far, I try to think about this statement as objective as possible.
Kant argues that consequences cannot or better should not be the groundwork for ethical and moral judgements, for human beings are because of their nature not able to think of all the possible reactions of what they did. In Germany (and probably in a very similar way also in the US), there is this saying: „If in Brazil, a butterfly flaps with its wings, in China, a sack of rice is gonna fall to the ground.“ This principle idea has also been used for storybooks many times. Probably, the most famous example for that is the movie „Butterfly Effect“ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9MsNurndQ). Another example is the german movie „Lola rennt“ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx8XPYbMuXA or english trailer „Run Lola Run“: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta1Sn6MtC9w).The basic idea of these movies is that because of small decisions, the whole development of the story changes. Obviously, humans seem to agree on their lack of power in terms of evaluating future progressions.
But don‘t we always do this in our daily life? Or if we try to act virtuously? If we take the example of today‘s class, which was about a birthday present that was given with the good will to make the other person happy, we have to realize that this moral correct action was good because the consequences were meant to be good. Of course, Kant answers that every will and therefore also the good will aims to a certain (good) goal but isn‘t exactly that the break in his argumentation? Apparently, it is not only about the good will if we talk about moral judgements but also about the so called good consequences of this good will, we try to achieve.
Coming back to the argument developed above, human beings are not able to estimate the consequences of their acting. For this is going to spin round forever, we have to try to get out of this circle. Maybe we can come to a kind of compromise regarding the two basic, philosophical principles of Deontology and Utilitarianism by saying both claims that we made are correct bot they don‘t exclude each other. The consequences of our actions are important because they are, with what we confront other people, but if we talk about moral and therefore also judicial judgements, the actor‘s intention should be the center of our attention.
Finally, I would like to raise the question, if we can combine Deontology and Consequentialism and if yes, could it be done in the way as suggested above?
I think the key distinction between these two schools of thought is how they each define moral behavior.
ReplyDeleteFor an action to be moral, Kant obviously believes in strict, duty-related principles (for instance, "lying is always wrong").
Conversely, Mill (and Bentham) are not concerned with hard and fast principles. Rather, they are concerned with results, or the consequences that follow. Those consequences determine the morality of the actions that one takes. The famous Trolley dilemma, for example, shows how one action (pulling the lever) is morally superior to another (not pulling the lever) because it minimizes aggregate pain.
So, i don't think that the two are reconcilable precisely because they take into account different considerations in determining what is moral behavior. Here's what i mean...
Let's go back to the trolley example. I think Kant would argue that taking an action that causes the immediate death of another is unconditionally immoral. Therefore, pulling the lever is morally unacceptable regardless of other circumstances.
Mill obviously would advocate for pulling the lever because it minimizes aggregate pain and, therefore, maximizes happiness. Clearly, these two views differ dramatically in difficult moral dilemmas.
The two are irreconcilable in the trolley example above, and they *seem* irreconcilable in general.
I think that, although people from these different schools of thought could indeed wind up acting the same way in a given circumstance, the philosophies are ultimately irreconcilable.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the trolley example above, I would suggest that the deontologist and consequentialist might follow the same course of action. The deontologist, in pursuing a universally "good" law for the sake of itself (having a purely "good will"), could pull the lever to make the trolley kill fewer people, thereby following a law allowing the fewest number of people to be harmed as possible. This seems like a universally "good" law which one could use reason to derive and could be desired to be followed by everyone on Earth as well. And the consequentialist would also choose to pull the lever for the conscious purpose of doing the least amount of damage consequentially.
So although the two may go through the thought process differently, this is an example, I think, of how they could actually ACT in accordance with one another. But that being said, it is important that this does not mean the actual philosophies are reconcilable, since the most distinguishing features of philosophies are often the MEANS they recommend for coming to a conclusive action.
I have to agree with Thomas on this one, although I think that the trolley example complicates matters, rather than explaining them simply.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand the categorical imperative, it forbids us acting on maxims which, if made universal laws, would be an offense to reason. This is why we can't make false promises: because if the normative claim to make false promises was made a universal law, the very idea of a promise would be inconceivable, thus causing the universal law to be incoherent.
I am curious, however, how Kant would deal with the trolley situation. Thomas, you suggest that a universal law not to kill would mandate that an individual not pull the lever, but as we have discussed, this is a situation in which not pulling the lever is an action with fatal consequences for another person. Unless we can effectively dispute the claim that not pulling the lever is still an action that kills (which seems very difficult to do) it seems that a person in this situation finds himself having to choose between two actions, both of which kill others. How would a deontology be constructed in this situation without resorting to some sort of consequentialist calculus?