Consequentialism and deontology are often seen to be at odds in the realm of philosophical thought. Where consequentialism holds that the consequences of an action are what determine if an action is morally correct, deontology argues that the moral mindset or devotion to a duty that make an action morally correct. The basic assumption is that one must be in a given camp tends to permeate discussions of morality.
I feel that I have a duty to society so I often fall into the deontology camp. However, perversions of deontological thought can often be seen. Nazi Germany is everyone’s favorite whipping boy for corruption of societal philosophy but it does serve as a good example of how deontological arguments can be taken to extremes. Did a citizen of Dresden feel they were serving a greater societal good by shipping the Jews to Auschwitz? After all it was their duty. If you want to take deontology to a gross conclusion, these citizens were not acting in a morally corrupt manner. However, this is a perversion of deontological thought. Kant, largely considered to be a deontologist, argued that only “good will” is the deciding factor in moral actions. If the police chief of Dresden truly believed that he was operating in good faith and to achieve a higher purpose, the systematic killing of a group of people could be argued as morally correct. I argue that most people would view this as morally reprehensible and that is where moral absolutism takes over. Some actions, such as murder, are viewed as morally incorrect no matter the reason behind it.
Going back to consequentialism things are slightly more defined. Only the consequences of an action matter. In this case, taking an immoral action such as murder may be justified if the consequence of such an action is seen as “good” or morally correct. Once again, the police chief of Dresden could argue that the consequences of killing a group of people are a societal gain and thus the immoral act of murder is acceptable. It gets even easier to justify when you don’t view the target of the action to be human in the first place.
Utilitarianism is a school of consequentialism that teaches, at its core, the more happiness is created, the more morally correct an action. Like any school of thought this can be taken to extremes; a common example being harvesting the organs of a healthy person to increase the happiness of five other healthy people. For many this is an adequate measure of moral actions.
Where consequentialism fails is that it is impossible to know all the consequences of a particular action. This unknown means that a given action may ultimately be immoral. Deontology solves this riddle by saying the ultimate consequence isn’t the guiding factor on morality. Both have flaws when taken to extremes.
I don’t think the average person, or average leader, is consciously making choices based on a school of thought. I do think that consequentialism tends to permeate United States culture and that is creating a sense of selfishness and entitlement on all ends of the demographic spectrums. Rugged individualism is often celebrated and personal achievements are highlighted far more that group achievements. Much attention is focused on individual sports players, often neglecting that without their team, the players are ineffective. Where I see an interesting paradigm is that individual sports such as tennis, golf, and boxing are often less popular in the public sphere; where in a culture that purports to celebrate the individual the opposite should be true. Sure there are devoted fans of these sports and those that master it are able to command great salaries but on a national scale think of the fervor that surrounds the Super Bowl versus Wimbledon. I think that on an instinctive level, most people understand that the group, team, or society is what creates ultimate success or failure. The betterment of the group is better than the betterment of the individual.
I look at this as being in the deontological camp but borrowing from utilitarian principles. I see that people have a duty to adhere to moral standards or truths but these truths need to advance the group as a whole. A truth that only benefits one person isn’t much of a truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment