Deontological EthicsWord文件下载.docx

Deontological EthicsWord文件下载.docx

《Deontological EthicsWord文件下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Deontological EthicsWord文件下载.docx（21页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

sFoil:

Consequentialism

∙2.DeontologicalTheories

o2.1Agent-CenteredDeontologicalTheories

o2.2Patient-CenteredDeontologicalTheories

o2.3ContractarianDeontologicalTheories

o2.4DeontologicalTheoriesandKant

∙3.TheAdvantagesofDeontologicalTheories

∙4.TheWeaknessesofDeontologicalTheories

∙5.Deontology'

sRelation（s）toConsequentialismReconsidered

o5.1Makingnoconcessionstoconsequentialism:

apurelydeontologicalrationality?

o5.2Makingnoconcessionstodeontology:

apurelyconsequentialistrationality?

∙6.DeontologicalTheoriesandMetaethics

∙Bibliography

1.Deontology'

Becausedeontologicaltheoriesarebestunderstoodincontrasttoconsequentialistones,abrieflookatconsequentialismandasurveyoftheproblemswithitthatmotivateitsdeontologicalopponents,providesahelpfulpreludetotakingupdeontologicaltheoriesthemselves.Consequentialistsholdthatchoices—actsand/orintentions—aretobemorallyassessedsolelybythestatesofaffairstheybringabout.Consequentialiststhusmustspecifyinitiallythestatesofaffairsthatareintrinsicallyvaluable—oftencalled,collectively,“theGood.”TheythenareinapositiontoassertthatwhateverchoicesincreasetheGood,thatis,bringaboutmoreofit,arethechoicesthatitismorallyrighttomakeandtoexecute.（TheGoodinthatsenseissaidtobepriorto“theRight.”）

ConsequentialistscananddodifferwidelyintermsofspecifyingtheGood.SomeconsequentialistsaremonistsabouttheGood.Utilitarians,forexample,identifytheGoodwithpleasure,happiness,desiresatisfaction,or“welfare”insomeothersense.OtherconsequentialistsarepluralistsregardingtheGood.SomeofsuchpluralistsbelievethathowtheGoodisdistributedamongpersons（orallsentientbeings）isitselfpartlyconstitutiveoftheGood,whereasconventionalutilitariansmerelyaddoraverageeachperson'

sshareoftheGoodtoachievetheGood'

smaximization.

Moreover,therearesomeconsequentialistswhoholdthatthedoingorrefrainingfromdoing,ofcertainkindsofactsarethemselvesintrinsicallyvaluablestatesofaffairsconstitutiveoftheGood.Anexampleofthisisthepositingofrightsnotbeingviolated,ordutiesbeingkept,aspartoftheGoodtobemaximized—theso-called“utilitarianismofrights”（Nozick1974）.

Noneofthesepluralistpositionserasethedifferencebetweenconsequentialismanddeontology.Fortheessenceofconsequentialismisstillpresentinsuchpositions:

anactionwouldberightonlyinsofarasitmaximizestheseGood-makingstatesofaffairsbeingcausedtoexist.

HowevermuchconsequentialistsdifferaboutwhattheGoodconsistsin,theyallagreethatthemorallyrightchoicesarethosethatincrease（eitherdirectlyorindirectly）theGood.Moreover,consequentialistsgenerallyagreethattheGoodis“agent-neutral”（Parfit1984;

Nagel1986）.Thatis,valuablestatesofaffairsarestatesofaffairsthatallagentshavereasontoachievewithoutregardtowhethersuchstatesofaffairsareachievedthroughtheexerciseofone'

sownagencyornot.

Consequentialismisfrequentlycriticizedonanumberofgrounds.Twooftheseareparticularlyaptforrevealingthetemptationsmotivatingthealternativeapproachtodeonticethicsthatisdeontology.Thetwocriticismspertinentherearethatconsequentialismis,ontheonehand,overlydemanding,and,ontheotherhand,thatitisnotdemandingenough.Thecriticismregardingextremedemandingnessrunslikethis:

forconsequentialists,thereisnorealmofmoralpermissions,norealmofgoingbeyondone'

smoralduty（supererogation）,norealmofmoralindifference.Allactsareseeminglyeitherrequiredorforbidden.Andtherealsoseemstobenospacefortheconsequentialistinwhichtoshowpartialitytoone'

sownprojectsortoone'

sfamily,friends,andcountrymen,leadingsomecriticsofconsequentialismtodeemitaprofoundlyalienatingandperhapsself-effacingmoraltheory（Williams1973）.

Ontheotherhand,consequentialismisalsocriticizedforwhatitseeminglypermits.Itseeminglydemands（andthus,ofcourse,permits）thatincertaincircumstancesinnocentsbekilled,beaten,liedto,ordeprivedofmaterialgoodstoproducegreaterbenefitsforothers.Consequences—andonlyconsequences—canconceivablyjustify 

any 

kindofact,foritdoesnotmatterhowharmfulitistosomesolongasitismorebeneficialtoothers.

Awell-wornexampleofthisover-permissivenessofconsequentialismisthatofacasestandardlycalled,Transplant.Asurgeonhasfivepatientsdyingoforganfailureandonehealthypatientwhoseorganscansavethefive.Intherightcircumstances,surgeonwillbepermitted（andindeedrequired）byconsequentialismtokillthehealthypatienttoobtainhisorgans,assumingtherearenorelevantconsequencesotherthanthesavingofthefiveandthedeathoftheone.Likewise,consequentialismwillpermit（inacasethatweshallcall,FatMan）thatafatmanbepushedinfrontofarunawaytrolleyifhisbeingcrushedbythetrolleywillhaltitsadvancetowardsfiveworkerstrappedonthetrack.Weshallreturntotheseexampleslateron.

Consequentialistsareofcoursenotbereftofrepliestothesetwocriticisms.SomeretreatfrommaximizingtheGoodto“satisficing”—thatis,makingtheachievementofonlyacertainleveloftheGoodmandatory（Slote1984）.Thismoveopensupsomespaceforpersonalprojectsandrelationships,aswellasarealmofthemorallypermissible.Itisnotclear,however,thatsatisficingisadequatelymotivated,excepttoavoidtheproblemsofmaximizing.Norisitclearthatthelevelofmandatorysatisficingcanbenonarbitrarilyspecified,orthatsatisficingwillnotrequiredeontologicalconstraintstoprotectsatisficersfrommaximizers.

Anothermoveistointroduceapositive/negativedutydistinctionwithinconsequentialism.Onthisview,our（negative）dutyisnottomaketheworldworsebyactionshavingbadconsequences;

lackingisacorresponding（positive）dutytomaketheworldbetterbyactionshavinggoodconsequences（Bentham1789（1948）;

Quinton2007）.WethushaveaconsequentialistdutynottokilltheoneinTransplantorinFatMan;

andthereisnocounterbalancingdutytosavefivethatoverridesthis.Yetaswiththesatisficingmove,itisunclearhowaconsistentconsequentialistcanmotivatethisrestrictiononall-outoptimizationoftheGood.

Yetanotherideapopularwithconsequentialistsistomovefromconsequentialismasatheorythatdirectlyassesses 

acts 

toconsequentialismasatheorythatdirectlyassesses 

rules—orcharacter-traitinculcation—andassessesactsonlyindirectlybyreferencetosuchrules（orcharacter-traits）（Alexander1985）.Itsproponentscontendthatindirectconsequentialismcanavoidthecriticismsofdirect（act）consequentialismbecauseitwillnotlegitimateegregiousviolationsofordinarymoralstandards—e.g.,thekillingoftheinnocenttobringaboutsomebetterstateofaffairs—norwillitbeoverlydemandingandthusalienatingeachofusfromourownprojects.

Therelevancehereofthesedefensivemaneuversbyconsequentialistsistheircommonattempttomimictheintuitivelyplausibleaspectsofanon-consequentialist,deontologicalapproachtoethics.Forasweshallnowexplore,thestrengthsofdeontologicalapproacheslies:

（1）intheircategoricalprohibitionofactionslikethekillingofinnocents,evenwhengoodconsequencesareintheoffing;

and

（2）intheirpermissiontoeachofustopursueourownprojectsfreeofanyconstantdemandthatweshapethoseprojectssoastomakeeveryoneelsewelloff.

2.DeontologicalTheories

Havingnowbrieflytakenalookatdeontologists'

foil,consequentialisttheoriesofrightaction,weturnnowtoexaminedeontologicaltheories.Incontrasttoconsequentialisttheories,deontologicaltheoriesjudgethemoralityofchoicesbycriteriadifferentfromthestatesofaffairsthosechoicesbringabout.Themostfamiliarformsofdeontology,andalsotheformspresentingthegreatestcontrasttoconsequentialism,holdthatsomechoicescannotbejustifiedbytheireffects—thatnomatterhowmorallygoodtheirconsequences,somechoicesaremorallyforbidden.Onsuchfamiliardeontologicalaccountsofmorality,agentscannotmakecertainwrongfulchoicesevenifbydoingsothenumberofthoseexactkindsofwrongfulchoiceswillbeminimized（becauseotheragentswillbepreventedfromengaginginsimilarwrongfulchoices）.Forsuchdeontologists,whatmakesachoicerightisitsconformitywithamoralnorm.Suchnormsaretobesimplyobeyedbyeachmoralagent;

suchnorm-keepingsarenottobemaximizedbyeachagent.Inthissense,forsuchdeontologists,theRightissaidtohavepriorityovertheGood.IfanactisnotinaccordwiththeRight,itmaynotbeundertaken,nomattertheGoodthatitmightproduce（includingevenaGoodconsistingofactsinacco