Consequentialist vs. Deontological Ethics

Revised  8/28/2017

 

Consequentialist Vs. Deontological Ethics

Let’s explore the

connections

similarities

differences

Two core approaches to ethics

The results determine if something is ethical

Consequentialism (consequentialist ethics)

(utility means usefulness)

Compare to:

“The ends justify the means”

The rules determine if something is ethical

Deontologism (deontological ethics)
(from
Gr. deon=duty,
logos=study)

Compare to:

“The ends cannot justify the means”?

              Well, do they or don’t they?

Related concepts: Kantian categorical imperative, subjectivity, intent and universalizing intent

1. Suppose an out-of-control train is hurtling down the tracks, you happen to be at the switch, and if you operate the switch it will hit one person but if not it will hit five. What do you do?

2. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/woman-disfigured-generic-drug-loses-21-million-award/story?id=19520506

3. Section 5 of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

4. “Don’t lie”: but what if that leads to harm to someone?

5. What about punishing “pre-crime” as in the movie “Minority Report” ?


IMG_20150327_144843896

Is this an example of a deontological or consequentialist approach to ethics?

Consequentialist and deontological ethics: both imperfect
       Consequentalism:
                 Pain and suffering should be compensated
                 Attempted murder is not unethical (no consequences)
       Deontologism:
                 No compensation for pain and suffering
                 Attempted murder is unethical
       So what should we do?
What about virtue ethics for these two questions?

 

More details on ends and means

Ends vs. means:

Which is the focus of deontological ethics?

Which is the focus of consequentialist ethics?

Which of the following are:
Deontological?
Consequentialist?

Laws about the awarding of damages

privacy and security issues in IT

tax laws

parking and speeding laws

laws about violent crime

The golden rules

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you

Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you

Do unto others as they would have you do unto them (promoted by e.g. J. Gray Cox)

The 10 commandments

Problems with deontological ethics

(i.e. the means are all-important,

the ends are not,

associated with philosopher

Immanuel Kant)

 

It is intrinsically paradoxical to ignore consequences

“Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”

 Why?

“ ‘Better the whole people should perish’

than that injustice be done” (Kant 1780, 100)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological

We can short-circuit this

Kantian absolutism with

‘threshold deontology’

 

Threshold deontology

   Tolerate some adverse ends,

   – but –

   switch to consequentialism

   if appropriate

Any examples?

How about awarding of damages in US civil law?

 

Problems with consequentialism

(see e.g. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/)

What is a good or bad consequence?

A dictator of a totalitarian country

has a different idea than

the Declaration of Independence!

Or as the SEP puts it:

“What is Good?

Hedonistic Vs. Pluralistic

Consequentialisms”

…and yet…

moral intuition

often fits consequentialism

better than it fits deontologism

What do you think?

And how should we think about some of our examples?

(the golden rules, the 10 commandments, privacy and security issues in IT, tax laws, parking and speeding laws, laws about violent crime)

Theory of copyrights and patents

– persuade people to create by protecting their IP

– let others benefit by not protecting the IP

– how to balance those two?

– How is this deontological? Consequentialist?

Suppose someone is injured by a rare side effect of a drug?

– should they be compensated, or not?

– what is the consequentialist argument?

– what is the deontological argument?

– what is your argument?

Advertisements

Intro to ethics: Megan Meier case

(last update 8/21/2017)

An ethics case from the early days of social media

Facts

1. Megan Meier was a troubled 13-year old Missouri girl

2. On Myspace, she was befriended by 16-year old “Josh Evans” who she did not know personally

                    MySpace was once the first facebook

                    (anyone have an acct.?)

3. “Josh” cultivated an on-line romance at first, but then his messages changed

4. He wrote “I don’t know if I want to be friends with you anymore”

and later

5. “You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you.”

6. At that point, she hanged herself in her closet.

7. Josh turned out to be a fictitious MySpace person created by ex-friend’s mother Lori Drew and shared with several others

8. Some time later, it all came to light

9. Neighbors shunned the Drews following the incident

10. They had to move

11. Laws were updated

12. Drew was convicted of a misdemeanor but the conviction was overturned

13. In fact, all she really did was violate Myspace’s terms of service!

Questions

– 1. Who is right, who is wrong, and WHY?

Let’s break up into groups now and continue the discussion!

            Online students: post the answers in your blog

How much ethical responsibility does:

    – 2. the friend’s mother have?

    – 3. the girl have?

    – 4. the girl’s parents?

    – 5. Myspace?

    – 6. Facebook (if it happened today)

    – 7. the girl’s (former) friend?

    – 8. the neighbors?

– 9. Is it ethical for Drew to have to move/go into hiding?

– 10. What would you do as a parent in a case like this, and what are your reasons, ethical and other?