Greg wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>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
Stuart wrote in response:
>Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 07:07:29 -0000
>
>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
>
And I write: What does "deontological framework" mean? Is this an
oxymoron? (Possibly the oxymoron to end all oxymorons?) But seriously, I
don't mean to be glib but the referent of this phrase is not at all clear
but perhaps you are referring to texts I am not familiar with.
Wait a minute - I think I know what you are asking. To put it in physical
(ontic?) terms: why is a perpetual motion machine impossible?
>
>
[The sport of understanding is a game without rules, forever demanding that
we make them up as we go...
Chris Daly]
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com