The What Is Philosophy saga continues

[faendryl]

This week: deontology versus consequentialism. Today, Nagel on Nozick. Nozick would like us to believe that there are a set of rights which can be treated as "side constraints" on action, i.e., there's no utilitarian tradeoff allowable, do not pass Go, do not collect 200 fauns. So, far, sounds like a standard deontological setup, no problems

Comments

[stolen_tea]

Personally, I view consequentialism as a guide for what to do, and deontology as a guide for how I should feel about it. In the torture example, I'd probably do the torture, and then feel hideous about it afterward, and seek out some sort of punishment, self-inflicted if necessary.

I think this is because I have little faith in the ability of logical argument to overcome human desires, and so I don't trust any moral system that asks for predictions and calculations about whether something will be good or bad. It's way too easy for people (generalizing from a sample size of one, namely me) to fool themselves. Which is where deontology comes in; it's much harder (although obviously not impossible) to ignore direct commands, and the lines are much clearer. So it's better suited to be a check on rationalization.

[faendryl]

Interesting. I like that use of the two forms. I personally have rather muddled moral views, without a clear system. Sort of ironic, considering that studying moral views is my current "job".

I don't think people even have to fool themselves to generate unfortunate results, they can have genuine value disagreements, even sometimes in ways that I as a neutral observer might not be able to decide amongst. Deontology's appeal to me is grounded in perversity; I think if you scratch me you find someone who believes that consequentialism is somehow right, but prefers deontology because it's more elegant.