A question for deontologists about the purpose of morality
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: December 4th, 2016, 9:07 pm
A question for deontologists about the purpose of morality
To the virtue ethecist, the purpose of morality might be to produce a society of people who embody the various virtues, or at the very least to cultivate those virtues within themselves. A virtue ethecist could argue that they desire to live in a society where people are brave, kind, industrious, etc. In other words, the purpose of such a morality is to produce a society full of the sort of people one would like best to associate with.
To the consequentialist, the purpose of morality might be to facilitate a smoothly functioning society which maximizes positive outcomes for as many people within that society as possible. A consequentialist could argue that they desire to live in a safe, comfortable, prosperous society, and that consequentialist ethics would be the best means by which to achieve such a society.
However, I cannot for the life of me figure out what a deontologist might think the purpose of morality is. Why should one follow rules such as the Categorical Imperative, and by what means could one convince others that they ought to do the same?
I would really like to hear from some deontologists on this. At this point, I'd rather not argue the merits of any one purpose over the other. I just want to better understand the deontological position.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
I don't see how the question is relevant to a deontological position? I was understand the impression that the intent of the ontologist is to do good and know that their consequence may actually lead to either a bad outcome or a good outcome. The "purpose" is simply not to act on something and knowingly cause bad.
As an example my response here is one of known ignorance, but I imagaine it as being possibly helpful in directing a future discussion and it is not meant in any way to undermine the OP only present my limited understanding.
My reply is deontological I guess? Meaning the consequence of it is not purposeñy thougjt out by me and that I only come into the discussion with "good will" even though I may, or may not, end up berating you and throwing insults at you then getting into an existential rage and murdering people ina lapse of psychosis!
So I guess maybe the "purpose" is investigation and general empathetic skepticism?
Whatever ism you hold to your grip cannot hold fast in every situation. Maybe that's what its "purpose" is? To hold faults and mistakes without becoming exasperated by them?
If I walk down the street and stand on a spider killing it, it is a consequence of my actions not the purpose of them. Being ignorant and naieve is forgivable. I would not hold a three year old responsible for the death of an adult regardless of the circumstances. For adults there is also leeway and it is often the education of an individual that results in ignorance and mistakes that cause "bad".
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: December 4th, 2016, 9:07 pm
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
The deontologist believes that being good means following a certain set of rules. Immanuel Kant is probably the most famous deontologist. He believed that we could arrive at morality through reasoning about it, and came up with the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative has two parts. The first is that you should "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." In other words, you should only do something if you could make it a law that everyone act as you do without running into a contradiction. For example, if you are considering stealing something, you ought to consider whether, if everyone stole what they wanted, if that leads to a logical contradiction. In order to steal something, you must take something that is not your property, but in a world where everyone is allowed to steal whatever they want, the concept of personal property wouldn't exist. As such, stealing would be acting in an illogical fashion. The second part of the Categorical Imperative is that you must not treat people as merely means to an end, but as ends in themselves. Basically this means to not use people as mere tools for accomplishing your own goals. Obviously, Kant's deontology is not the only kind out there, but it is probably the most well-known and the most discussed in philosophical circles.
With that out of the way, I'm still having a hard time deciphering what you were trying to say. Are you trying to say that to a deontologist, the intent is what matters? Are you trying to say that there isn't a purpose to morality on a deontological view, because morality is an end in itself? I really don't know what you're saying, so if you could clarify that, I'd really appreciate it.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
Why should one follow rules such as the Categorical Imperative, and by what means could one convince others that they ought to do the same?
A good question. I think some deontologists take it as a given that there are things we ought to do and that their concerns are with establishing what those things are. Others, rather than leaving it as a given might attempt to establish moral duty on something other than deontology. Kant, as far as I can see, bases it on autonomy and reason. The autonomous individual guided by reason will act in such a way as to assure his autonomy. The moral law is not imposed externally but is discovered rationally and followed freely so as to assure the autonomous freedom of the individual, which also means ensuring the autonomy of all other individuals.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
Aristotle states that prescriptive truths, which he calls "practical truths," are true in proportion to how well they conform to "right desire." A right desire is a natural desire (rather than an acquired desire). Natural desires are desires for real goods that every human being really needs, such as knowledge or material sufficiency/wealth. We "ought" to desire these goods precisely because they are actually good for us.
Acquired desires, on the other hand, are desires for things we may deem to be good that we do not really need. These acquired desires will differ from one individual to another according to their temperament, upbringing, etc.
We can only need what is actually good for us, we never need anything in excess that is bad for us. Therefore a prescriptive judgement is true if it expresses a desire for a good that we need.
As an example, if we start with the self-evident practical truth that we ought to desire whatever is really good for us, and we add the descriptive truth that all human beings naturally need knowledge, we conclude that we ought to seek or desire knowledge. This conclusion has prescriptive truth because it conforms to right desire, a desire for something that we naturally need.
We can apply the above reasoning to all of our natural needs or desires and thereby produce an entire set of true prescriptive judgements. This will deflate the relativism and subjectivism which reduces moral judgements to mere opinion.
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: December 4th, 2016, 9:07 pm
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
Fooloso4, I don't think you're far off the mark, at least as regards Kant, though I'm not sure I agree on the idea that Kant believes one ought to try and secure one's own autonomy. I think Kant would probably see that particular motivation as a bit more self-serving than he would like, though of course he's not here to speak for himself. Kant was very famously strict about his rules applying to everyone, and I think he might argue that if the goal were simply to attain one's own autonomy, one might act in a way that violates his Categorical Imperative in order to gain autonomy at the expense of others. The bit about rationality, though, I think is spot on. I think Kant wanted to come up with a system of morality which flowed from rational principles, such that any rational person would have to accept them, and I think that at least partially answers my original question.
Felix, I think it's interesting that you use Aristotle to try to answer this question, as he was quite famously a virtue ethicist and not a deontologist. I will resist the temptation to attempt to argue with your summary of Aristotle's beliefs, as that would be off-topic. What I would like to know is how you think Aristotle's view connects to deontology. I can understand how the view would make sense in light of Aristotelian virtue ethics, as virtue would entail knowing exactly how much of something we need and working to obtain exactly that and nothing more, but I have a hard time understanding how such a view could be used to justify deontology.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
I'm not sure I agree on the idea that Kant believes one ought to try and secure one's own autonomy. I think Kant would probably see that particular motivation as a bit more self-serving than he would like, though of course he's not here to speak for himself.
It is not a matter of securing autonomy but acting in accordance with our autonomy. It is not self-serving because our moral duty may entail doing something that is not beneficial to us personally. Moral autonomy requires that we act according to reason not self interest.
Kant was very famously strict about his rules applying to everyone …
Well, they are not his rules, but rules that we determine autonomously by reason. They apply to everyone because logic and reason is the same for everyone.
I think he might argue that if the goal were simply to attain one's own autonomy, one might act in a way that violates his Categorical Imperative in order to gain autonomy at the expense of others.
Autonomy is not something that needs to be attained. It is the condition by which we are able to act freely. To act freely does not mean to do whatever we want but to freely choose what reason determines should be done.
The bit about rationality, though, I think is spot on. I think Kant wanted to come up with a system of morality which flowed from rational principles, such that any rational person would have to accept them, and I think that at least partially answers my original question.
Right. Morality requires free choice and free choice requires autonomy. Without autonomy we cannot act freely and if we cannot act freely we cannot act as moral agents, but only as beings obedient to the power of an outside authority.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
I don't honestly understand a lot of talk about ethics because you cannot reduce such a thing to a rational decision. If you do so then it is no longer an ethical problem merely a logical one. I am pretty sure that is what Kant was saying. We act as we see best and with convinction not as all knowing. When we decide we should act as if it is a universal law or there is no point in acting. Obviously if we see error then we can hopefully not be dogmatic and adjust.
I think to ask "what is morality for?" is like asking "what is yellow for?". The question is the error.
- Renee
- Posts: 327
- Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
Whoops. I am having huge, major trouble applying the concept of "end" to humans.Andrian wrote: The second part of the Categorical Imperative is that you must not treat people as merely means to an end, but as ends in themselves. Basically this means to not use people as mere tools for accomplishing your own goals.
What is an "end" exactly? Your explanation I can't translate into an inner, concrete, manipulatable concept.
What is an "end". I am seriously baffled here. An end is something that you can't use as mere tools.
This patently does not give me any clue as to what "end" means.
This may be the very hurdle in my not comprehending Kant. I always thought he made no sense. At. All.
Now I know why I've always thought that. Because he uses a defined word which is negatively defined, but very loosely, so that its definition is not a utility; the definition provides no understanding; it can't give anyone any real or graspable concept what the heck he is talking about when he says "end".
The only way I can conceptualize "end" is "means justify / do not justify the end", where "end" is a state of affairs. But humans are not states of affairs.
GAAAAAAA!!!!!! What the $)#?*R is an "end"?
And how do you "use" humans? by conniving them to do your bidding? I can't do that. I am a social flop, i can't manipulate people. I couldn't even sell blabber to Eskimos, or condoms to hookers. Or syringes to heroine-addicts. I couldn't pit two roaring angry drunks against each other.
Yey. I am... ethical. According to Immanuel.
Whoopty.
-- Updated December 15th, 2016, 4:48 am to add the following --
According to this, Hitler was an ethical person. So was Nero, Morgenthaugern-Hibloom, Charlie Manson, Dave Mason (my operating systems professor at Ryerson), and Satan himself.Fooloso4 wrote:The autonomous individual guided by reason will act in such a way as to assure his autonomy. The moral law is not imposed externally but is discovered rationally and followed freely so as to assure the autonomous freedom of the individual,
To reason means "to think logically soundly". It makes no claim over the validity of premise.
I contest that it is possible in ethics to ensure one's own autonomical interests while aligning it with other's autonomous interests, without using someone other than the self in the process; and using others is forbidden according to Kant.Fooloso4 wrote:...which also means ensuring the autonomy of all other individuals.
So Kant basically sets up an impossible-to-follow ethicism, in which he categorically demands three things to follow always, which three things are mutually completely incompatible, that is, all three components in ethical actions can never be achieved at the same time and in the same respect.
-- Updated December 15th, 2016, 4:59 am to add the following --
This last paragraph: Without autonomy, we can't act freely; and needing to observe other's autonomy in the principles of our actions, robs us of that very freedom.Fooloso4 wrote:Andrian:
""""The bit about rationality, though, I think is spot on. I think Kant wanted to come up with a system of morality which flowed from rational principles, such that any rational person would have to accept them, and I think that at least partially answers my original question""""
Right. Morality requires free choice and free choice requires autonomy. Without autonomy we cannot act freely and if we cannot act freely we cannot act as moral agents, but only as beings obedient to the power of an outside authority.
Kant's system is self-contradictory. It comes to a grinding halt when one tries to put it into service.
(Beyond Kant: Ethical actions are not acts of freedom. Ethical actions are immovable, they are not only AS IF an action obedient to the power of an otuside authority; ethical action IS action to the power of an outside authority, namely the genetically coded behaviour patterns that ensure that the closest extant form or derivative of our dna gets to survive to reproductive maturity. This is not decided by reason; this is an outside agency (inasmuch as it commands actions by us which can't be rebelled or gone against; a parent will always try to pull his children out of tha burning house, for instance.))Fooloso4 wrote:and if we cannot act freely we cannot act as moral agents, but only as beings obedient to the power of an outside authority.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
I wasn't suggesting that Aristotle's arguments justify Kant's position (sorry if I gave that impression) but that they pinpoint its flaws.Andrian: What I would like to know is how you think Aristotle's view connects to deontology. I can understand how the view would make sense in light of Aristotelian virtue ethics, as virtue would entail knowing exactly how much of something we need and working to obtain exactly that and nothing more, but I have a hard time understanding how such a view could be used to justify deontology.
Kant's Categorical Imperative: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Kant claimed that our reason should be bound by his categorical imperative because it is a self-evident moral truth. But what makes it a self-evident truth? He does not say, I guess we're just supposed to take his word for it. According to him, we should follow this "universal" moral law and ignore pertinent matters of fact such as our desires and the facts of human nature.
The categorical imperative is essentially the golden rule: Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you. But he ignores the pivotal question that underlies this moral prescription, which is: what ought one rightly wish that others do unto one? To answer this question, one must consider the material facts (of human nature, etc.) to which Aristotle refers but which Kant excludes from consideration.
Kant says that the only thing that is really good is a good will. And what is a good will? Why it's a will that follows the "self evident" logic of the categorical imperative. Apparently a good will is a confused will....
- Renee
- Posts: 327
- Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
I don't think the Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule are the same at all.Felix wrote: Kant's Categorical Imperative: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
The categorical imperative is essentially the golden rule: Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you.
The categorical imperative calls for universiality; the golden rule calls for equality. Not the same.
For instance:
A woman has a starving child. He is imminently dead by starvation. The woman steals food for him to sustain him.
This is universal. But don't steal from me. Don't do to me what I'd do to to you. I would steal from you if my child was starving, but don't steal from me when your child is starving. It's okay to steal, it's universal; but steal from someone else, not from me. In other words, I accept that stealing food for a starving child is universal; but not reciprocal.
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: December 4th, 2016, 9:07 pm
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
I was under the impression that Kant said we cannot know what is morally right and good, but use reason to try and get as close as possible to what seems morally right and good.
He says that the only thing good in itself without qualification is the good will. We cannot know the consequences of our actions but we can determine whether the action itself was morally right and good if it is in accord with the moral law as determined by reason.
Renee:
According to this, Hitler was an ethical person. So was Nero, Morgenthaugern-Hibloom, Charlie Manson, Dave Mason (my operating systems professor at Ryerson), and Satan himself.
They violate the categorical imperative.
So Kant basically sets up an impossible-to-follow ethicism, in which he categorically demands three things to follow always, which three things are mutually completely incompatible, that is, all three components in ethical actions can never be achieved at the same time and in the same respect.
What three things and how do they conflict?
This last paragraph: Without autonomy, we can't act freely; and needing to observe other's autonomy in the principles of our actions, robs us of that very freedom.
The need to observe the autonomy of others does not rob us of our freedom. Our freedom is not to act in any way we want but to freely act as rational moral agents, that is, to act according to the dictates of reason. To act irrationally is to rob us of our freedom because it contradicts our ends as rational moral agents.
Kant's system is self-contradictory. It comes to a grinding halt when one tries to put it into service.
How so?
Felix:
Kant claimed that our reason should be bound by his categorical imperative because it is a self-evident moral truth. But what makes it a self-evident truth? He does not say, I guess we're just supposed to take his word for it. According to him, we should follow this "universal" moral law and ignore pertinent matters of fact such as our desires and the facts of human nature.
I take it that your point is that it is not self-evidently true that moral truths are a priori. If so, I agree.
-- Updated December 15th, 2016, 12:22 pm to add the following --
Andrian:
It seems to me that proponents of such systems might be trying to say that we ought to follow them just because that's what we ought to do, as if their rules were merely brute facts about morality.
I do not think it is a matter of brute facts but of rational determination. We follow the dictates of reason because it is reasonable to do so.
- Renee
- Posts: 327
- Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
If there is such a thing as a wrong question, then this is one.Andrian wrote:The question is why one ought to follow rules such as the Categorical Imperative in the first place.
We don't have to, ought not to even feel that we have to, follow rules such as the Categorical Imperative in the first place.
What exactly gave you the idea that one ought to? According to Kant, yes, but only because it's his idea.
A beautiful cartoon comes to mind regarding this. A big, tall scientist and a very short scientist are talking in the background of the picture; the very short scientist obviously is trying to convince the tall scientist of something, who is holding his own chin, obviously carefully considering the words of the short scientist. He is on the verge of being sold. In the foreground two normal-sized, and somewhat cynical cyentists are talking, and one makes the remark, "Smith is still trying to gain support for his "Little Bang" theory."
This was authored by Gary Larson, creator of the "Far Side".
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
Yes indeed, that was Kant's mistake, he attempted to make incorporeal reason the supreme arbiter of Goodness. He did not succeed because his argument is logically inconsistent or just too fuzzy.Fooloso4: I take it that your point is that it is not self-evidently true that moral truths are a priori.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023