Hi Greg
A big question! That will keep people going for a while. I don't think there
is a simple answer, and this debate seems to be at the heart of moral
philosophy. I guess the deontological framework is justified because it
would set absolute codes of practice, moral norms such as the categorical
imperative of Kant, or the ten commandments, by which there is no grey area,
things are clear, motive is all, etc. But it's inflexible and good
intentions don't always lead to good outcomes. Utility tries to look at
whether things have good or bad consequences, and obviously suffers from the
difficulty of predicting outcomes. I hesitate to suggest one is better than
the other: they're both flawed. Someone like JS Mill, it seems to me, tries
to balance the two with the introduction of rule utilitarianism (as opposed
to Bentham's act) - that is you judge individual acts on their consequences
most of the time, but there are some basic principles (like the principal of
liberty) which have _generally_ good consequences, and therefore _ought_ to
be followed. There are problems with Mill too, but he's still very
influential.
That's probably massively simplistic, but it might help.
An example - Kosovo. Was NATO actually according to some notion of duty -
'never again' - and did it have the desired effect? A debatable point,
surely.
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
TriscitMan@xxxxxxx
Sent: 01 March 2000 04:00
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Deontology v. Utilitarianism
Hello all -
What are some reasons to use a deontological framework to make policy over
that of a utility framework? Sorry is this is random, but i'm just confused
as to which would be the better framework.
-Greg Cram
A big question! That will keep people going for a while. I don't think there
is a simple answer, and this debate seems to be at the heart of moral
philosophy. I guess the deontological framework is justified because it
would set absolute codes of practice, moral norms such as the categorical
imperative of Kant, or the ten commandments, by which there is no grey area,
things are clear, motive is all, etc. But it's inflexible and good
intentions don't always lead to good outcomes. Utility tries to look at
whether things have good or bad consequences, and obviously suffers from the
difficulty of predicting outcomes. I hesitate to suggest one is better than
the other: they're both flawed. Someone like JS Mill, it seems to me, tries
to balance the two with the introduction of rule utilitarianism (as opposed
to Bentham's act) - that is you judge individual acts on their consequences
most of the time, but there are some basic principles (like the principal of
liberty) which have _generally_ good consequences, and therefore _ought_ to
be followed. There are problems with Mill too, but he's still very
influential.
That's probably massively simplistic, but it might help.
An example - Kosovo. Was NATO actually according to some notion of duty -
'never again' - and did it have the desired effect? A debatable point,
surely.
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
TriscitMan@xxxxxxx
Sent: 01 March 2000 04:00
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Deontology v. Utilitarianism
Hello all -
What are some reasons to use a deontological framework to make policy over
that of a utility framework? Sorry is this is random, but i'm just confused
as to which would be the better framework.
-Greg Cram