Deontology, Virtue Ethics, and Consequentialism
0
I recently made this video:
Which says most of what I want to say, but to give a little more substance and open this up to more informed discussion as to what you think you are, I have a few more things to say about these different normative positions.
All of this can be found at Plato.stanford.edu, but just as a few notes
Deontology: The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or study) of (logos). In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to (aretaic [virtue] theories) that — fundamentally, at least — guide and assess what kind of person (in terms of character traits) we are and should be. And within that domain, deontologists — those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality — stand in opposition to consequentialists.
Consequentialism: Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences. This general approach can be applied at different levels to different normative properties of different kinds of things, but the most prominent example is consequentialism about the moral rightness of acts, which holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind.
Virtue Ethics: Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent.
These are essentially the more technical definitions and introductions to the different normative positions that present in my video. I'm interested Fakkuers...which are you? And why?
Which says most of what I want to say, but to give a little more substance and open this up to more informed discussion as to what you think you are, I have a few more things to say about these different normative positions.
All of this can be found at Plato.stanford.edu, but just as a few notes
Deontology: The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or study) of (logos). In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to (aretaic [virtue] theories) that — fundamentally, at least — guide and assess what kind of person (in terms of character traits) we are and should be. And within that domain, deontologists — those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality — stand in opposition to consequentialists.
Consequentialism: Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences. This general approach can be applied at different levels to different normative properties of different kinds of things, but the most prominent example is consequentialism about the moral rightness of acts, which holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind.
Virtue Ethics: Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent.
These are essentially the more technical definitions and introductions to the different normative positions that present in my video. I'm interested Fakkuers...which are you? And why?
0
First i just wanted to say that i subscribed to your channel , what you have to say is always interesting and my knowledge in philosophy is really limited , that's why i'm so interested in your videos .
On topic , i don't really know what i indentify myself as or if i want to identify myself as something at all .
I ask myself , what is it that i want in life ? Beign happy . So i want to maximise my chances of beign happy . What is good then would be what increases my chances of beign happy and what is bad would be what decreases my chances of beign happy .
The only prerequisite for beign happy is freedom , so the more freedom i have the more chances i have of beign happy . So what is good is what will protect my freedom or others freedom and what is bad is what breaks my freedom or others freedom . I say "or others freedom" because it is impossible to have ultimate freedom in a society , you can live out of it or do a consensus and stop your freedom where others freedom starts .
So i'm not sure but i would say it's consequentialism since i base my judgement , if an action is good or bad , from the consequence of the action on the freedom of those who are affected by it .
On topic , i don't really know what i indentify myself as or if i want to identify myself as something at all .
I ask myself , what is it that i want in life ? Beign happy . So i want to maximise my chances of beign happy . What is good then would be what increases my chances of beign happy and what is bad would be what decreases my chances of beign happy .
The only prerequisite for beign happy is freedom , so the more freedom i have the more chances i have of beign happy . So what is good is what will protect my freedom or others freedom and what is bad is what breaks my freedom or others freedom . I say "or others freedom" because it is impossible to have ultimate freedom in a society , you can live out of it or do a consensus and stop your freedom where others freedom starts .
So i'm not sure but i would say it's consequentialism since i base my judgement , if an action is good or bad , from the consequence of the action on the freedom of those who are affected by it .
0
Consequentialism seems the most rational to me. Consequences are what we aim in, after all, we want our actions to affect the world around us. If the action doesn't have consequences, it's useless. I have hard time wrapping my head around the idea that following a moral rule or acting virtuously could be the moral even if it has a negative outcome. In order for that to be true, our actions would have to have some other purpose than the effects they cause.
If I understood the virtue ethics and deontology even anywhere near correctly, believing them to be true seems to require believing in either a higher power or that morality is something absolut and separate from humans. If it has positive effects for the people in both short and long one, for it to be bad would mean that someone else is documenting the business.
In the end, I usually find moral dilemmas and debates rather pointless. In the particle level thinks simply are, there is no good and evil, and in the human perspective there is always a point of view.
If I understood the virtue ethics and deontology even anywhere near correctly, believing them to be true seems to require believing in either a higher power or that morality is something absolut and separate from humans. If it has positive effects for the people in both short and long one, for it to be bad would mean that someone else is documenting the business.
In the end, I usually find moral dilemmas and debates rather pointless. In the particle level thinks simply are, there is no good and evil, and in the human perspective there is always a point of view.
0
Kavi wrote...
If I understood the virtue ethics and deontology even anywhere near correctly, believing them to be true seems to require believing in either a higher power or that morality is something absolut and separate from humans. If it has positive effects for the people in both short and long one, for it to be bad would mean that someone else is documenting the business.
Speaking as an atheistic virtue ethicist...how did you come to that conclusion?
0
Once again, I thank you for the intellectual stimulation.
Where would I be considering my beliefs regarding morality are based entirely upon a risk-analysis, assessment, and mitigation system? People will only name something as wrong if they, in some way, perceive it to be a threat. Killing is wrong because you don't want to be killed. Sealing is wrong because you don't want to be stolen from. I have been told that I posses no Ethics or Moral Code and that I deserve to suffer because of it, but I fail to understand what is wrong with following others moral standards, or utilizing a lack thereof, simply to avoid personal suffering.
Where would I be considering my beliefs regarding morality are based entirely upon a risk-analysis, assessment, and mitigation system? People will only name something as wrong if they, in some way, perceive it to be a threat. Killing is wrong because you don't want to be killed. Sealing is wrong because you don't want to be stolen from. I have been told that I posses no Ethics or Moral Code and that I deserve to suffer because of it, but I fail to understand what is wrong with following others moral standards, or utilizing a lack thereof, simply to avoid personal suffering.