Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Kaz_1983
Posts: 432
Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am

Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by Kaz_1983 »

I'm sure all you guys have heard of the trolley problem, it's a hypothetical question of whether or not you would let a train stay on track to kill five people or pull a leaver, to divert the train and kill just one person....

My moral system is based on a utilitarianism type morality... so I'd choose to pull the lever and kill the one person instead of five but if this is the case, you must believe that Batman is immoral.....I'll explain later..

But if you feel that the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences... well, don't pull the lever... Kant believed in something very similar to this.

I believe that actions that bring about the most good and reduce the suffering in the world are the right ones but if that's the case shouldn't Batman to be considered morally obligated to kill the Joker?

If you said yes to the first question, to stay consistent you would say yes to Batman killing the Joker.

See imo Batman believes that any action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong, rather than based on the consequences of the action. Or he would of killed the Joker already...

If you said no to the first question, to stay consistent would have to say no to Batman killing the Joker.

Ohhh and in this sense are you a hypocrite, if you do not stay consistent with your beliefs?
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by Hereandnow »

Kaz_1983
I'm sure all you guys have heard of the trolley problem, it's a hypothetical question of whether or not you would let a train stay on track to kill five people or pull a leaver, to divert the train and kill just one person....

My moral system is based on a utilitarianism type morality... so I'd choose to pull the lever and kill the one person instead of five but if this is the case, you must believe that Batman is immoral.....I'll explain later..

But if you feel that the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences... well, don't pull the lever... Kant believed in something very similar to this.

I believe that actions that bring about the most good and reduce the suffering in the world are the right ones but if that's the case shouldn't Batman to be considered morally obligated to kill the Joker?

If you said yes to the first question, to stay consistent you would say yes to Batman killing the Joker.

See imo Batman believes that any action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong, rather than based on the consequences of the action. Or he would of killed the Joker already...

If you said no to the first question, to stay consistent would have to say no to Batman killing the Joker.

Ohhh and in this sense are you a hypocrite, if you do not stay consistent with your beliefs?
Interesting thing about Kant is that his categorical imperative is reducible to consequentialism, or nearly so. If I am in some moral dilemma, say, the familiar one about having to return someone's ax when there is clear drunken murderous intent, Kant asks us to, if you will, pull out the rational calculator: I should only return the ax if I can will it to be a universal law that all do this in a situation like this one. But how does one evaluate the situation? One has to describe it, analyze it's details, and this makes my maxim quite complicated, for it is not about returning axes at bad times, it is about this time and all of the circumstantial details that apply must be figured in. Perhaps returning the ax will end in the death of a serial killer who would otherwise go free. Then you maxim becomes should a person return an ax to the rightful owner who has at time Y murderous intent that would spare many of a horrible death? The rightness of universalizing the maxim now turns where? To utility. If you think this a wrong interpretation of Kant's moral theory, let me know.

But this does not mean that utility decides all issues, does it? Take the story of the WWII townsman who was ordered by the nazis to put a bullet in the head of a boy who had helped perpetrate a plan to assault them. If he refused, they would murder other innocents (something like this). A tough call, really.

I am, like you, mostly a consequentialist in my moral thinking, but it has to always be understood that what produces "the greatest good" or "the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness" can lead to disastrous "consequences". It can be used to justify atrocities that will in the long run make things better. This is where Kant's Kingdom of Ends comes in: never treat a person as a means, for each is an end unto herself. But if Kant reduces to a utilitarian assessment of a moral problem, is he not subject to the same abuse by those who universalize their cruelty?

Of course, a society in which cruelty is embodied in a universal rule cannot survive, one could argue; but why can't the universal rule be tailored to fit the the utility of oppression?

Your thoughts?
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by Hereandnow »

There is something about the above that is counter intuitive.
User avatar
Pantagruel
Posts: 202
Joined: July 2nd, 2019, 5:26 pm
Favorite Philosopher: George Herbert Mead

Re: Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by Pantagruel »

I think the problem with any kind of ethical calculus, as hereandnow suggests, is that we are never really able to limit the effects of our actions or engender precisely the results we intend. Talking about ethics is very precise, it is in our control. In the real world, things rarely go exactly as planned. In my mind, this is why deontology has a significant advantage as a practical ethic. If you can't compute which action will have the best result (by whatever standard) then act in the way that seems most...ethical.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by LuckyR »

Pantagruel wrote: July 15th, 2019, 6:39 pm I think the problem with any kind of ethical calculus, as hereandnow suggests, is that we are never really able to limit the effects of our actions or engender precisely the results we intend. Talking about ethics is very precise, it is in our control. In the real world, things rarely go exactly as planned. In my mind, this is why deontology has a significant advantage as a practical ethic. If you can't compute which action will have the best result (by whatever standard) then act in the way that seems most...ethical.
Exactly correct. Folks here in Real Life predict (but can never know ahead of time) the results of their actions, thus the "trolley problem" has little value. If one wanted to make the trolley problem practical, it would be changed to some thing like:
You see a runaway trolley moving toward five people standing or walking near and on the tracks. The trolley is in danger of hitting one or more of them, or maybe none of them. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track, and the five people on the main track will be out of danger. However, there is a single person very near to the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to potentially kill up to five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will possibly kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option?

Most would shrug, pull the lever and wonder why such a simple question would be considered an example of ethics.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Pantagruel
Posts: 202
Joined: July 2nd, 2019, 5:26 pm
Favorite Philosopher: George Herbert Mead

Re: Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by Pantagruel »

LuckyR wrote: July 16th, 2019, 2:42 pm Most would shrug, pull the lever and wonder why such a simple question would be considered an example of ethics.
I do feel that a lot of philosophical examples become way too contrived to be meaningful. I think a complex theory should ultimately produce straightforward examples.
User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1401
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by Newme »

Hereandnow wrote: July 14th, 2019, 10:53 am There is something about the above that is counter intuitive.
Yes. The train and batman are different scenarios - in the 1st, the consequences are set as if an either-or immediate dilemma. With batman, it is not either-or nor is it immediate and known. Joker could become good, and killing should only be done in direct defense (of self or others). Otherwise, you could go up to parents who smoke and say they should die since they’re hurting themselves, their kids and others which will eventually end in lung cancer... etc.

When someone decided who deserves to live and die based on their own subjective ideas was historically, the beginning of tyranny that ended in genocide.

Still, it is an interesting idea.
“Empty is the argument of the philosopher which does not relieve any human suffering.” - Epicurus
Kaz_1983
Posts: 432
Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am

Re: Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by Kaz_1983 »

Newme wrote: July 16th, 2019, 6:18 pm
Hereandnow wrote: July 14th, 2019, 10:53 am There is something about the above that is counter intuitive.
With batman, it is not either-or nor is it immediate and known. Joker could become good, and killing should only be done in direct defense (of self or others).
I meant stopping something from very bad happening, like Batman knew the Joker was going to kill 3 people if Batman didn't stop him/kill him right now.. I didn't explain that properly.
User avatar
Pantagruel
Posts: 202
Joined: July 2nd, 2019, 5:26 pm
Favorite Philosopher: George Herbert Mead

Re: Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by Pantagruel »

Kaz_1983 wrote: July 16th, 2019, 9:13 pm
Newme wrote: July 16th, 2019, 6:18 pm
With batman, it is not either-or nor is it immediate and known. Joker could become good, and killing should only be done in direct defense (of self or others).
I meant stopping something from very bad happening, like Batman knew the Joker was going to kill 3 people if Batman didn't stop him/kill him right now.. I didn't explain that properly.
What if one of those 3 people was going to go on to do something even worse?
Kaz_1983
Posts: 432
Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am

Re: Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by Kaz_1983 »

Hereandnow wrote: July 14th, 2019, 10:48 am
Kaz_1983
I'm sure all you guys have heard of the trolley problem, it's a hypothetical question of whether or not you would let a train stay on track to kill five people or pull a leaver, to divert the train and kill just one person....

My moral system is based on a utilitarianism type morality... so I'd choose to pull the lever and kill the one person instead of five but if this is the case, you must believe that Batman is immoral.....I'll explain later..

But if you feel that the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences... well, don't pull the lever... Kant believed in something very similar to this.

I believe that actions that bring about the most good and reduce the suffering in the world are the right ones but if that's the case shouldn't Batman to be considered morally obligated to kill the Joker?

If you said yes to the first question, to stay consistent you would say yes to Batman killing the Joker.

See imo Batman believes that any action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong, rather than based on the consequences of the action. Or he would of killed the Joker already...

If you said no to the first question, to stay consistent would have to say no to Batman killing the Joker.

Ohhh and in this sense are you a hypocrite, if you do not stay consistent with your beliefs?
Interesting thing about Kant is that his categorical imperative is reducible to consequentialism, or nearly so. If I am in some moral dilemma, say, the familiar one about having to return someone's ax when there is clear drunken murderous intent, Kant asks us to, if you will, pull out the rational calculator: I should only return the ax if I can will it to be a universal law that all do this in a situation like this one. But how does one evaluate the situation? One has to describe it, analyze it's details, and this makes my maxim quite complicated, for it is not about returning axes at bad times, it is about this time and all of the circumstantial details that apply must be figured in. Perhaps returning the ax will end in the death of a serial killer who would otherwise go free. Then you maxim becomes should a person return an ax to the rightful owner who has at time Y murderous intent that would spare many of a horrible death? The rightness of universalizing the maxim now turns where? To utility. If you think this a wrong interpretation of Kant's moral theory, let me know.

But this does not mean that utility decides all issues, does it? Take the story of the WWII townsman who was ordered by the nazis to put a bullet in the head of a boy who had helped perpetrate a plan to assault them. If he refused, they would murder other innocents (something like this). A tough call, really.

I am, like you, mostly a consequentialist in my moral thinking, but it has to always be understood that what produces "the greatest good" or "the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness" can lead to disastrous "consequences". It can be used to justify atrocities that will in the long run make things better. This is where Kant's Kingdom of Ends comes in: never treat a person as a means, for each is an end unto herself. But if Kant reduces to a utilitarian assessment of a moral problem, is he not subject to the same abuse by those who universalize their cruelty?

Of course, a society in which cruelty is embodied in a universal rule cannot survive, one could argue; but why can't the universal rule be tailored to fit the the utility of oppression?

Your thoughts?
Very interesting.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by h_k_s »

Kaz_1983 wrote: July 13th, 2019, 12:21 pm I'm sure all you guys have heard of the trolley problem, it's a hypothetical question of whether or not you would let a train stay on track to kill five people or pull a leaver, to divert the train and kill just one person....

My moral system is based on a utilitarianism type morality... so I'd choose to pull the lever and kill the one person instead of five but if this is the case, you must believe that Batman is immoral.....I'll explain later..

But if you feel that the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences... well, don't pull the lever... Kant believed in something very similar to this.

I believe that actions that bring about the most good and reduce the suffering in the world are the right ones but if that's the case shouldn't Batman to be considered morally obligated to kill the Joker?

If you said yes to the first question, to stay consistent you would say yes to Batman killing the Joker.

See imo Batman believes that any action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong, rather than based on the consequences of the action. Or he would of killed the Joker already...

If you said no to the first question, to stay consistent would have to say no to Batman killing the Joker.

Ohhh and in this sense are you a hypocrite, if you do not stay consistent with your beliefs?
The above by Kaz_1983 is an entertaining look at the dilemma of action versus inaction.

In philosophical terms, I myself always harken back to Aristotle's "magnanimous man" concept. I would suspect that the magnanimous man would (1) take action and would (2) take that action which helps the most and harms the least.

So that's my answer. Your thoughts?
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by h_k_s »

Hereandnow wrote: July 14th, 2019, 10:48 am
Kaz_1983
I'm sure all you guys have heard of the trolley problem, it's a hypothetical question of whether or not you would let a train stay on track to kill five people or pull a leaver, to divert the train and kill just one person....

My moral system is based on a utilitarianism type morality... so I'd choose to pull the lever and kill the one person instead of five but if this is the case, you must believe that Batman is immoral.....I'll explain later..

But if you feel that the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences... well, don't pull the lever... Kant believed in something very similar to this.

I believe that actions that bring about the most good and reduce the suffering in the world are the right ones but if that's the case shouldn't Batman to be considered morally obligated to kill the Joker?

If you said yes to the first question, to stay consistent you would say yes to Batman killing the Joker.

See imo Batman believes that any action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong, rather than based on the consequences of the action. Or he would of killed the Joker already...

If you said no to the first question, to stay consistent would have to say no to Batman killing the Joker.

Ohhh and in this sense are you a hypocrite, if you do not stay consistent with your beliefs?
Interesting thing about Kant is that his categorical imperative is reducible to consequentialism, or nearly so. If I am in some moral dilemma, say, the familiar one about having to return someone's ax when there is clear drunken murderous intent, Kant asks us to, if you will, pull out the rational calculator: I should only return the ax if I can will it to be a universal law that all do this in a situation like this one. But how does one evaluate the situation? One has to describe it, analyze it's details, and this makes my maxim quite complicated, for it is not about returning axes at bad times, it is about this time and all of the circumstantial details that apply must be figured in. Perhaps returning the ax will end in the death of a serial killer who would otherwise go free. Then you maxim becomes should a person return an ax to the rightful owner who has at time Y murderous intent that would spare many of a horrible death? The rightness of universalizing the maxim now turns where? To utility. If you think this a wrong interpretation of Kant's moral theory, let me know.

But this does not mean that utility decides all issues, does it? Take the story of the WWII townsman who was ordered by the nazis to put a bullet in the head of a boy who had helped perpetrate a plan to assault them. If he refused, they would murder other innocents (something like this). A tough call, really.

I am, like you, mostly a consequentialist in my moral thinking, but it has to always be understood that what produces "the greatest good" or "the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness" can lead to disastrous "consequences". It can be used to justify atrocities that will in the long run make things better. This is where Kant's Kingdom of Ends comes in: never treat a person as a means, for each is an end unto herself. But if Kant reduces to a utilitarian assessment of a moral problem, is he not subject to the same abuse by those who universalize their cruelty?

Of course, a society in which cruelty is embodied in a universal rule cannot survive, one could argue; but why can't the universal rule be tailored to fit the the utility of oppression?

Your thoughts?
I believe the magnanimous man would throw the ax into the sea.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by h_k_s »

Hereandnow wrote: July 14th, 2019, 10:53 am There is something about the above that is counter intuitive.
All paradoxes and dilemmas are counter-intuitive.

As Kant pointed out, anything intuitive is merely a-priori.

And anything else is a-posteriori.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by h_k_s »

LuckyR wrote: July 16th, 2019, 2:42 pm
Pantagruel wrote: July 15th, 2019, 6:39 pm I think the problem with any kind of ethical calculus, as hereandnow suggests, is that we are never really able to limit the effects of our actions or engender precisely the results we intend. Talking about ethics is very precise, it is in our control. In the real world, things rarely go exactly as planned. In my mind, this is why deontology has a significant advantage as a practical ethic. If you can't compute which action will have the best result (by whatever standard) then act in the way that seems most...ethical.
Exactly correct. Folks here in Real Life predict (but can never know ahead of time) the results of their actions, thus the "trolley problem" has little value. If one wanted to make the trolley problem practical, it would be changed to some thing like:
You see a runaway trolley moving toward five people standing or walking near and on the tracks. The trolley is in danger of hitting one or more of them, or maybe none of them. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track, and the five people on the main track will be out of danger. However, there is a single person very near to the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to potentially kill up to five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will possibly kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option?

Most would shrug, pull the lever and wonder why such a simple question would be considered an example of ethics.
Actually I suspect that most "real people" would do nothing. They would be frozen by inaction.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Utilitarianism vs Deontological Morality

Post by h_k_s »

Newme wrote: July 16th, 2019, 6:18 pm
Hereandnow wrote: July 14th, 2019, 10:53 am There is something about the above that is counter intuitive.
Yes. The train and batman are different scenarios - in the 1st, the consequences are set as if an either-or immediate dilemma. With batman, it is not either-or nor is it immediate and known. Joker could become good, and killing should only be done in direct defense (of self or others). Otherwise, you could go up to parents who smoke and say they should die since they’re hurting themselves, their kids and others which will eventually end in lung cancer... etc.

When someone decided who deserves to live and die based on their own subjective ideas was historically, the beginning of tyranny that ended in genocide.

Still, it is an interesting idea.
Ok back to Batman, then, sure.

Batman should never play God. Nobody should.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021