Ethical frameworks: consequentialism and deontologism

[Drug addict]

I've started this thread partly so I can check my own understanding of the theories, but also in the hope it will be useful and informative to others.

 

There are four main principles in ethical decision making:

The Principle of Autonomy - in certain areas, an individual has the right to be self-governing

The Principle of Beneficence - promote well-being or benefit

The Principle of Non-maleficence - do no harm

The Principle of Justice - equals ought to be considered equally (perhaps more important in looking at allocation of resources)

 

There are two main ethical theories: consequentialism and deontologism.

 

Consequentialism

 

This theory is concerned with outcomes, and has been formulated by Parfit as: '... there is one ultimate moral aim: that outcomes be as good as possible.'

We therefore need to define what a good outcome is. In the classic version of consequentialism put forward by Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and known as utilitarianism or hedonistic consequentialism, it is argued that what has ultimate value is hapiness. Therefore good outcomes are those which yield hapiness, hapiness being equated with the sensation of pleasure and the absence of pain.

 

This again presents problems - how are pleasure and pain to be measured, and how can they be recognised in those who cannot express their experiences.

 

Deontological theory

 

This theory is concerned with doing what is right. Certain actions or rules are right, regardless of the consequence they have. But how do you determine if an action is right?

 

Kant proposed a test, the 'Categorical Imperative' which could be used to test whether a certain rule was really a duty. The Categorical Imperative, as formulated by Kant is:

 

'Act only on the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law'

 

As a minimum, in order for a maxim to be capable of becoming a universal law it must not be self-contradictory when stated in its universal form. For example, to take the maxim of making promises with no intention of keeping them. If this was universalised it would become contradictory since the practice of promise keeping would disappear as no one could believe promises as they would know there was no intention of them being kept.

 

There are maxims which do not become contradictory when universalised, but are still not duties as they fail the second part of the test in the Categorical Imperative, that is we can want it to become a universal law. An example would be only taking care of yourself. While this is not contradictory when universalised, Kant argues it would be in conflict with itself, since there are many situations where you may need help from others.

 

Kant also argues that we need to recognise other humans are also ends in themselves and must not be treated as a means to an end.

 

 

Consequentialism seems to have an advantage in that only one thing has intrinsic value - happiness. However, how do you convert everything into the currency of happiness? A more fundamental critiscism of consequentialism is that separate individuals are not of paramount importance - the maximisation of happiness is the goal. If this is achieved by unequal distribution between individuals, nothing can be done about it.

 

Deontological theories may present problems in moral dilemmas, as they provide no procedure to solve conflicts between duties. Perhaps the fundamental advantage of deontological theories over consequentialist theories is the recognition of the importance of the individuals - it is not legitimate to sacrifice individuals for the sake of a particular favourable outcome.

 

 

That's enough for now (I've got work to do!), but later I'll add justifications for the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice from both consequentialist and deontological viewpoints, as well as a discussion of acts and omissions, the doctrine of double effect and ordinary and extraordinary means.

[Kraft]

AFAIK, in medicine deontological ethics is used at the hands on levels, while hedonistic utilitarian is used at macro level.

 

You missed the principle of impossibility and fidelity/best action in deontology. That one can not be obligated to do what is impossible in the circumstances, and that anyone with an obligation has a duty to fulfil it to the best of their abilities. The singular or Kantian form isn't normally applied in medicine. In the pluralistic version, the one you stated, the principles are guiding, not absolute (prima facie). This does lead to a balancing of rights/duties and although the same framework used different balancings are possible.

 

In consequentialism, one must have data to support whatever 'good' is to be maximized. Also, an act (each situation on its own) or rule approach must be chosen (general rules which will max good). Physical well-being rather than happiness would likely be the good to be maximized in medicine.

[logicBomb]

i guess 'deontological theory' is what i have thought of as objective ethics, or 'morality'. in my reading i've been convinced that all objective ethics, such as the 10 (is it?) commandments, exhibit the naturalistic fallacy. i use the term 'morality' to refer to such formalized quasi ethical coda.

 

yr 'consequentialism' is what i call situational ethics, which is essentially relativistic. insofar as situational ethics are sensitive to reasoning about 'consequences' there is an element of objectivity, but the context & significance of consequences are subjective.

 

i generally refute all claims to objectivity in ethical decision making & subscribe to a truly subjective theory of ethics parallelling feyerabend's 'anarchistic theory of knowledge'.

 

my theory of ethics is founded in empathy, which i consider to be a form of piajetian animism, or rather, a form of tautological anthropomorphism. despite its essential subjectivity, empathy is a learned skill & in many ways a collective phenomenon. further, the effective operation of empathy is augmented by knowledge & insight, & so it is sensitive to the same kind of objective reasoning about consequences over which utilitarian philosophy claims a monopoly.

 

punishment aside, empathy is the only possible motive to do 'the right thing'. such a motive is completely absent from yr formulae. to me this is the dirty secret of utilitarianism, & the reason why it is so bloodless & clinical a philosophy.

 

 

================================

i think there are some problems w/ yr 4 principles...

 

the 'Principle of Autonomy' is surely -- an individual is self-governing -- since self government is necessary for individuality.

 

there is a fifth Principle of Empathy - that the Principles of Beneficence & Non-maleficence be applied as if the role of benefactor/non-malefactor is reversed with that of beneficiary/non-maleficiary.

 

the fifth Principle is aimed at keeping yr benefactors & non-malefactors honest.

 

cheers

[Commie_Pinko]

Well, you are right to an extent. THe original form of Utilitarianism was about hedonism, but that's not exactly what the modern version of Utility Theory is about. It still stresses the heart of the Utility Principle--Do the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number, but happiness is not the only and central component.

 

Now, there are various flavours of Utilitarianism, including Hedonism, Negative, and Preference. However, one is not limited to these frameworks. THere are newer considerations to take into account whem comming up with a Utility Calculus

 

IE. Objective vs Subjective. WHen we are weighing the purely subjective wants of some vs others, we simply try to maximize the desires of the people. When dealing with Objetive concerns such as suffering, physical damage, destruction, and death, we weigh the general worth of those units with the necessity and benefits of the action.

 

Now, things like justice, pleasure, happiness, knowledge are considered alongside suffering and objective damages. It's not purely a "make everyone happy game." Preference Utilitarianism, for example, deals with the subjective desires of individuals and stresses that people should generally be responsible for determining their own happiness and fulfilling their own desires (given that they don't cause objective harm to others). This is a freer version--a more individualistic version--of Utilitarianism.

 

I use my own version of Utilitarianism, which takes into consideration all of the above, but my main focus is not to maximize happiness, rather knowledge and rationality while minimizing unnecessary suffering and damage.

 

Essentially, Utilitarianism is not so much strictly about maximizing Happiness. Utilitarianim is a framework of thought. It's a bottom up approach to ethics.

 

 

Now, Utilitarianism isn't the only conseqeuentialist system of Ethics. Ayn Rand's 'Objectivism' is also, to an extent, consequentialist, because it makes use of ethical egoism, which itself is consequentialism.

 

 

General Overview from what I know.

 

 

Virtue Ethics

 

1. Nicomachean

2. Buddhist

3. Christian (original)

4. Confucuian

5. Ayn Rand Objectivism (partly)

6. Nietchean Ethics

7. Feminist Care Ethics (Nell Noddings)

 

 

Deontological:

 

Kantian Deontology (I don't really like it much)

John Rawls "Justice as Fairness" (Modern Liberalism)

Prima Facie Deontology

Ayn Rand Objectivism (to an extent; she's a kantian theif, virtue theif, and rights theif).

 

Consequentialism:

 

1. Utilitarianism (Many variations). Excellent, widely used theory since the 19th.

2. Ethical Egoism (Sucks)

 

 

Relativism.

 

1. Conventional Ethical Relativism (cultural)

2. Ethical Subjectivism (personal)

 

 

Normatively, ethics cannot function relativistically and serve its purpouse

Metaethically, it can, and probably is ultimately metaethically relative.

[logicBomb]

thanx for that. i will delve deeper at leasure.

 

just hav to say i remain so far unmoved in my own personal conclusions, tho i can see they may not be best suited to the pragmatic concerns of medicos & bureaucrats & whatnot.

 

interesting how you describe xtian ethics as 'original' virtue ethics. howso? i tend to view levantine monotheism as the proto-existential late neolithic underpinnings of civic law -- in other words quite worldly.

 

otoh, the self negation that is fundamental to buddhist thought fits much closer to my valorizing of a 'functional empathy' operating in human affairs. it seems to be the inverse of self aggrandizing xtian virtue & the goal of eternal life in heaven.

 

have you read 'the sea of fertility' by yukio mishima?. it has a fascinating & lengthy discussion of buddhist ethical thought & its application to korean jurisprudence.

 

also just wondering about this, which seems to be the nub of yr post...

Normatively, ethics cannot function relativistically and serve its purpouse

Metaethically, it can, and probably is ultimately metaethically relative.

...normatively... i am unable to conjure up an objective (euclidean?) ethics merely becos one is required for some purpose or another. i have difficulty w/ this whole idea that something is wrong becos it 'just is'. pedophilia & terrorism can both be seen as beneficial in certain lights, & i think a realistic ethical system must be able to deal w/ such ideas. otherwise its just a dogma.

 

what zactly distinguishes 'metaethics' from plain 'ethics'?

[Commie_Pinko]

Oh, when I say (original) for Christian, I mean the original doctrine espoused "supposedly" by Christ. I don't mean to say he came up with it. The Original had a lot in common with other, earlier forms of Virtue ethics that were non-christian.

 

 

...normatively... i am unable to conjure up an objective (euclidean?) ethics merely becos one is required for some purpose or another. i have difficulty w/ this whole idea that something is wrong becos it 'just is'. pedophilia & terrorism can both be seen as beneficial in certain lights, & i think a realistic ethical system must be able to deal w/ such ideas. otherwise its just a dogma.

 

what zactly distinguishes 'metaethics' from plain 'ethics'?

 

Metaethics tries to say whether or not something is metaphysically justified, while normative ethics does not do that. It's a type of guideline creator and dispensor. It tells what one ought to do and then see how it functions when applied.

 

Metaethics does not do this. It's much more difficult, because it is trying to come up with logical, consistant explanations of the Theories.

 

When I say that normative relativism does not work, I take into account what ethics is for. It's ment to live a "good life." Realistically, at a bare minimum, this means that Human society needs to survive. Any ethical system which goes against that is dysfunctional as a tool. You could never, for example, have a deliberately malicious normative code; it would be pointless.

 

IE. X action is moral if it does the most damage to everyone. It's counter-productive.

[logicBomb]

so if i told you i am an existentialist in the sense that whatever meaning i descry in existence is a product of my own contemplation of it, & that my ontology is guided by likelihood not belief, & suggests i am a product of (probably) a big bang, stellar evolution, biological evolution & so on, then what kind of metaphysics is that, that it has any impact on ethics.

 

therefore i root my ethical enquiry in empathy because it is a phenomenon & not a principle. empathy is the subjective experience of the projected emotional state of another experiencing subject.

 

empathising is easy to do but, like animism, can be naive & innapropriate. experience, culture & reason direct & refine empathy/animism in certain ways, but do not change its fundamental nature or operation, which is that causing distress to another subject is subjectively experienced as distressing.

 

there is no objective principle of what is right or wrong in my ethics. if it feels good, do it. if it feels bad, refrain. it's a culture, not a science. an act that is known to cause distress (now or later) to another is 'wrong' in the sense that it feels wrong to commit. if a person rapes or murders with no understanding that it is 'wrong', then it isn't 'wrong'. this is the reason why in some countries the death penalty is not applied to people below a certain age or iq.

[Commie_Pinko]

In your ethical system, whatever you feel like is good, do it. Ok, then the logical extention of this for society is: If you feel raping little babies is fantastic, it is moral?

 

Even if someone does not know it's wrong, that does not make the action right. You cannot hold the person morally accountable, but the consequences are still bad.

[logicBomb]

In your ethical system, whatever you feel like is good, do it. Ok, then the logical extention of this for society is: If you feel raping little babies is fantastic, it is moral?

if a wild dog eats a little baby, is that immoral? in my ethical system, experience, culture & reason enable me to empathise with little babies. i personally cld not rape a little baby, however good it might feel. the reason is that i can imagine how it wld feel for the baby, & whatever motivation there was to do it wld be outweighed by my internalizing of the baby's experience.

 

the fact that babies do get raped is the consequence of a failure of empathy, not a failure of ethical reasoning. the key ethic in my system is that a person 'should' empathise & value empathy. the most grevious ethical failing in my system is to raise children w/out showing them, therefore teaching them, empathy.

 

Even if someone does not know it's wrong, that does not make the action right. You cannot hold the person morally accountable, but the consequences are still bad.

ethics & moral accountability are semantic twins, i think. the consequences of a comet striking earth may be bad, but that does not make astrophysics a branch of ethics.