i have suddenly become rather curious about the 'conflict' after reading this fascinating segment of a post on rhp:
"utilitarianism is rather ls like mr spock saying, after sacrificing himself at the end of star trek 2, the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. it certainly was both sensible and heroic justification of the principle in the movie."
but, let us recall that in star trek 3, kirk countered with "the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" (which i thought was a rather utilitarian usage of a potentially deontologic concept as it applied in the movie).
so i am curious as to how rhp attempts to resolve the two ideologies since i know little about either.
for anyone who also knows little about all this, but would like to participate in a somewhat informed fashion, i have included below some definitions and examples that i have stolen from the web.
in friendship,
prad
Utilitarianism vs. Deontology
(http://www.wcdebate.com/4bconnection/ld-article-05-03.htm)
Although there are a variety of values and criteria for debaters to select from when formulating their cases, two of the most prevalent in LD debate are utilitarianism and deontology. Often used as both criteria and as values in LD, these are two time-honored philosophical positions that apply to a wide variety of topics. All LD debaters need to be familiar with these competing philosophies in order to be consistently successful in competition.
Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is an ethical system that is most often attributed to philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism believes that the most ethical thing to do is to maximize the happiness within a society. Utilitarians believe that actions have calculable outcomes and that ethical choices have outcomes which lead to the most happiness to the most members of a society. Utilitarianism is thus often considered a 'consequentialist' philosophical outlook because it both believes that outcomes can be predicted and because it judges actions based on their outcomes. Thus, utilitarianism is often associated with the phrase 'the ends justify the means.'
Deontology: Deontology is an alternative ethical system that is usually attributed to the philosophical tradition of Immanuel Kant. Whereas utilitarianism focuses on the outcomes, or ends, of actions, deontology demands that the actions, or means, themselves must be ethical. Deontologists argue that there are transcendent ethical norms and truths that are universally applicable to all people. Deontology holds that some actions are immoral regardless of their outcomes; these actions are wrong in and of themselves. Kant gives a 'categorical imperative' to act morally at all times. The categorical imperative, in its most widely used formulation, demands that humans act as though their actions would be universalized into a general rule of nature. Kant believes that all people come to moral conclusions about right and wrong based on rational thought. Deontology is roughly associated with the maxim 'the means must justify the ends.'
The conflict illustrated: A classic example illustrates the conflict between these two ethical systems. Suppose an evil villain holds you and ten other people at gunpoint and tells you that she will kill all ten of your fellow prisoners unless you kill one of them yourself. You have no doubts about the veracity of the villain's threats; you believe fully that she will do as she says she will. Therefore, you have two options. The first option is to kill one of the ten people to save the lives of the other nine. The other option is to do nothing and watch the villain kill all ten people. Utilitarians would most likely conclude that you should kill the one person because it has the most beneficial outcome. Deontologists would most likely conclude that you should not kill the one person because killing another person is wrong as a universal moral truth.
Utilitarianism's answers to deontology: Utilitarianism's first answer to deontology is to say that there are no 'universal moral truths.' Such truths are difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain. On the other hand, the benefits and disadvantages of actions are much more easily calculated. Thus, rather than relying on amorphous, vague moral truths to guide action we should look to more concrete ways of determining the ethics of a particular act. Also, utilitarianism would argue that deontology leads to morally untenable outcomes, such as in the example above. Utilitarians would argue that the outcome of ten deaths is much less desirable than one. Thus, we should always look to the ends rather than the means to determine whether an act is ethical or not.
Deontology's answers to utilitarianism: Deontology's first answer to utilitarianism is to say that the ends are illusory. That is, it is impossible to predict the outcomes of one's actions with absolute certainty. The only thing one can be sure of is whether his or her actions are ethical or not based on the categorical imperative. Additionally, deontologists believe that we can only be responsible for our own actions and not the actions of others. Thus, in the example above you are only responsible for your decision whether to kill the prisoner or not; the villain is the one making the unethical choice to kill the rest of the prisoners. One is only responsible for following the categorical imperative. Finally, deontologists argue that utilitarianism devolves into dangerous moral relativism where human beings are allowed to justify heinous acts on the grounds that their outcomes are beneficial.
This is just an introduction to these philosophical and ethical traditions.
Originally posted by pradtfNo offense intended Prad, but that is a horrible introduction to both deontological views and utilitarian views. I don't even know where to begin.
i have suddenly become rather curious about the 'conflict' after reading this fascinating segment of a post on rhp:
"utilitarianism is rather ls like mr spock saying, after sacrificing himself at the end of star trek 2, the needs of th ...[text shortened]... st an introduction to these philosophical and ethical traditions.
Not all Utilitarians are committed to maximizing happiness (Bentham thought we should maximize pleasure, Mill thought we should maximize higher-order, intellectual pleasure, Singer thinks we should maximize preference satisfaction, etc.). Not all Utilitarians think outcomes can be accurately predicted, which is one reason why Rule Utilitarianism developed (with Mill, I might add). Not all Utilitarians are committed to the view that the moral status of actions are based solely upon their consequences. Some versions of the view think the moral status of an act is determined by the intentions of the actor. So, in some utilitarian view, an actor who intends to maximize utility but fails horribly will still have done the right thing.
The version of the categorical imperative given in the summary is not only incorrectly stated, but it is also not the most widely used formulation. The author was talking about the Universal Rule formulation of the categorical imperative which states that we ought to act only upon maxims such that we could, without contradiction, will that those maxims be universal laws. It is not the actions themselves that are universalized, but the maxims upon which we act. Further, we aren't to imagine what would be the case were everyone to act in the manner in which we are proposing to act. Rather, we are to try to determine whether our maxim would be effective in bringing about our ends in a world where everyone acted upon our maxim when they were in a situation relevantly similar to ours. Further, the most widely used formulation is the Formula of Humanity, which claims that we must always act so as to treat humanity, both in ourselves and in others, as an end in and of itself and not solely a means.
Not even Kant thought that killing another person is universal moral wrong. Kant thought killing was justified in cases of self-defense. Also, most deontologists would need to know what the folks in that first example would consent to in order to determine whether killing the one person was morally wrong. If the one consents to death to save the nine, then some deontologists would argue that it is morally permissible (though not obligatory) to take his life.
Utilitarianism can't possibly say that there are no universal moral truths. For instance, Act Utilitarianism is committed to the claim that it is a universal moral truth that an act that maximizes utility (or expected utility) is morally right. It is also a universal moral truth that an act that minimizes utility (or expected utility) is morally wrong. Utilitarianism is not a relativistic view.
Originally posted by bbarrnone taken 😀
No offense intended Prad, but that is a horrible introduction to both deontological views and utilitarian views. I don't even know where to begin.
i hope as this thread develops, i too will see what these ideas are really all about and not have to steal this education from the net. 😀
in friendship,
prad
Just a general question.
Is there any difference between the two following claims :
"Act X is a morally justifiable act." and "Act X is a morally "correct" act."
In case of the justifiable war, you cannot claim that a war is a morally good action. However it can be justifiable.
There seems to be a difference in my opinion.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI also think there is a difference, just as there is a difference between an act being morally obligatory and being merely morally permissible.
Just a general question.
Is there any difference between the two following claims :
"Act X is a morally justifiable act." and "Act X is a morally "correct" act."
In case of the justifiable war, you cannot claim that a war is a morally good action. However it can be justifiable.
There seems to be a difference in my opinion.
So, it seems that all morally correct actions will be morally justifiable, but not all morally justifiable acts will be morally correct. Some justifiable acts will merely be permissible.
Originally posted by bbarr
I also think there is a difference, just as there is a difference between an act being morally obligatory and being merely morally permissible.
So, it seems that all morally correct actions will be morally justifiable, but not all morally justifiable acts will be morally correct. Some justifiable acts will merely be permissible.
Yes, I agree. Thanks.
As the relative merits of deontological and utilitarian ethics are under discussion, let me throw in an interesting question. Are there situations in which, no matter what one does, it is impossible not to do something wrong? It seems to me that an implicit goal of utilitarian ethics is to derive a calculus from which, if all the facts were know, although often they cannot be, one could in principle compute a single right answer, corresponding to the best course of action, the action that is therefore "right". However, my intuition, having made some difficult choices in life, is that, even if one chooses the optimal course of action available, one sometimes still does something that is objectively wrong. I think this means that I am, to some degree, a deontologist, as the situations I have in mind are those in which one fails to satisfy equally pressing but necessarily incompatible obligations. I wonder however if one of the potential subconscious attractions of utilitarism is that is offers adherents a means of avoiding having to deal with ethical situations in which no satisfying resolution is viable. Religious fundamentalism presumably serves a similar function, though without engaging the brain.
Aiden
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeEgalitarianism. Why should one person be allowed to hoard all the unhappiness for himself when the other four people have none? 😉
Another question: Is it better, all other things being equal, that one person suffers five units of unhappiness, or that five people suffer one unit of unhappiness? I would choose the second option. However, I cannot think of a theoretical basis for my choose. Can anyone else?
Aiden
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeAren't we most happy when we are in situations where we feel that we are in tune with both philosophies, as two sides of the same the coin? I don't like to choose between these two streams of thought.
Are there situations in which, no matter what one does, it is impossible not to do something wrong?
We encounter a problem when we realize that these two streams are not in harmony with each other and lead to different behaviour and result. Then we have to find a middle way. We try to regulate that by law and agreements. When there are no laws we have to use our conscience as best as we can to find a compromise.
We often feel torn because we have to choose between two ways of acting we both value.
We can at least partly overcome this feeling of discomfort by realizing that there is no other way than trying to find a middle way.
Fjord.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeActually, I think either a Kantian view or a Social Contract view would be able to accomodate this intuition. Suppose, hypothetically, that the five people to whom you refer were to attempt to derive mutually acceptable rules to govern their behavior. Do you think that they would consent to run the risk of being the person suffering five units of unhappiness rather than being assured of losing one unit of unhappiness? I think most people would agree to the significantly lesser, certain loss rather than running a one in 5 risk of incurring a significant loss. In short, I think that considerations of rational self-interest can ground this intuition, and rational self-interest can play a role in a variety of meta-ethical views. In case you are wondering, there is a wonderful discussion of this point by John Rawls, the recently deceased political philosopher from Harvard. The clearest statement of the view comes in his book "Justice as Fairness", and a wonderful theoretical modification of the view can be found in T.M. Scanlon's seminal article "Contractualism and Utilitarianism". A quick introduction to the central thought experiment undergirding Rawl's view can be found under the entry "Original Position" in the online Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy.
Another question: Is it better, all other things being equal, that one person suffers five units of unhappiness, or that five people suffer one unit of unhappiness? I would choose the second option. However, I cannot think of a theoretical basis for my choose. Can anyone else?
Aiden
Originally posted by bbarrBbar,
No offense intended Prad, but that is a horrible introduction to both deontological views and utilitarian views. I don't even know where to begin.
Being involved in the animals rights movements for about a decade now, I constantly hear utilitarian reasons for doing what we do...many people engage in utilitarian discussions and consequenlty (according to me) justifications for certain actions. Overall though the utilitarian philosophy has not done much for me, rather the deontological one has, but I know very little about this. Hence, I am grateful to pradtf for bringing this discussion to light. 😵
So, if i may engage you in a few discussions, I would be grateful for your input as I respect many of your posts on this forum.
Firstly, let's look at pradtf's example about the shooter asking you to kill one person in order to save 9...well i don't think this example is grounded in reality (as Joan Baez says- Hypothetical situations, bring about hypothetical answers!) nonetheless I think discussing this will help me to understand these two philosophies better.
So, in this situation, the utilitarian thing would be to kill one person to save the rest. But, that would require me to trust the word of the immoral perpetrator in the first place...ie how do I know that he will be true to his word and spare us all?
This leads me to reason that I can only trust myself and my actions...I can not control the world around me, but I can control who I am. I don't want to kill one person while I trust the criminal to have mercy on us all...
At work today someone asked me, would you kill one person to save a million. I don't like answering these questions, cuz i don't know what i will do in that situation. Most situations in life are not black and white, life leaves much room for creativity so that we don't have to kill one person. But the thought of killing a Hitler does not disturb me. I can't wrap my head around this seeming dissent within my own mind...
What is a deontological approach to this situation? I'm most interested in what you have to say.
Originally posted by bbarrHi Bennett,
Actually, I think either a Kantian view or a Social Contract view would be able to accomodate this intuition. Suppose, hypothetically, that the five people to whom you refer were to attempt to derive mutually acceptable rules to govern their behavior. Do you think that they would consent to run the risk of being the person suffering five units of unhappiness ...[text shortened]... be found under the entry "Original Position" in the online Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy.
I think I may be posing a more basic question. Let's suppose that 5 units of pain have to be somehow distributed to 5 individuals. Let's also suppose that I am not among those individuals but that I am charged with the responsibility of distributing those units of pain to them. (I am the devil's dogsbody, Beelbezub the Bothersome.) My question is: why should I prefer to distribute the unitized pains among the five than to concentrate them in the one?
I agree that distributing pain is, in some sense, fairer. But, to ask a more basic question, why is fairer, in this sense, preferable here? The fairness involved is not, say, fairness of opportunity, or fairness in allocating rewards based on effort invested. If I concentrate the pain in one person, then four people feel no pain at all. Why does the goodness of four of individuals being pain-free not counterbalance the badness of one person feeling all 5 units of pain? Let's put the issue more starkly. Would it be better that five people feel 2 units of pain each than that one of the five feel 5 units of pain and the rest none? That would mean that one would be prepared to double the collective pain felt to 10 units in order to ensure fairness in this sense. And if not 2 units per person, then what? Where is the balance point?
To formalize, suppose N is the number of persons and P is the total pain to be distributed. Why is it better that N people experience P/N pains than that N/N people experience P pains? Or consider the corresponding equality:
(N*(P/N)[*k]) = ((N/N)*P)
Does it not seem that k has to be 1? But in fact our intuition is that is should be greater than 1. Why?
Could Spock have been wrong then? Could the needs of the few (at least, when one is not one of the few, and nobly concerned with acting selflessly) outweigh the needs of the many, in the interests of fairness?
We have been considering pains (or, perhaps more generally, costs). But suppose now we discuss pleasures (or, perhaps more generally, benefits), and ask the same questions. Again, I think most people's intuition suggest that we should lean towards distributing pleasures rather than concentrating, even at the cost of reducing the total amount of pleasure. But will the extent of the bias be the same? My intuition is that the generally bias towards distribution will be present but attenuated, but perhaps others would disagree.
There are some interesting asymmetries when people weigh up potential costs and benefits. Many would argue with you that "most people would agree to the significantly lesser, certain loss rather than running a one in 5 risk of incurring a significant loss." Prospect theory, originated by Kahneman and Tversky, predicts that, where potential losses are concerned, most people prefer riskier options, whereas where potential gains are conerned, most people prefer safer options.
Here's an example. Consider two offers, X and Y. In both offer, you have to make a choice.
Offer X: You start with nothing.
Option A: 100% chance of gaining £15,000
Option B: 50% chance of gaining £10,000 and 50% chance of gaining £20,000
Offer Y: You start with £20,000
Option A: 100% chance of losing £5,000
Option B: 50% chance of losing £10,000 and 50% chance of losing £0
It turns out that, when made Offer X, most people prefer the safer Option A, whereas when made Offer Y, most people prefer the riskier Option B. Of course, the expected value (likelihood x magnitude) of Options A and B within and across both offers is the same (15,000 units), but their perceived value differs, and depends on whether a gain beckons or a loss looms. Prospect theory also predicts that a given unit loss will outweigh a given unit gain. So, only a third of people accept a 50% chance of winning £200 versus losing £100, even though the expected value is 50 units.
Aiden