Deontological Ethics.docx
《Deontological Ethics.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《Deontological Ethics.docx(21页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
DeontologicalEthics
DeontologicalEthics
FirstpublishedWedNov21,2007;substantiverevisionWedDec12,2012
TheworddeontologyderivesfromtheGreekwordsforduty(deon)andscience(orstudy)of(logos).Incontemporarymoralphilosophy,deontologyisoneofthosekindsofnormativetheoriesregardingwhichchoicesaremorallyrequired,forbidden,orpermitted.Inotherwords,deontologyfallswithinthedomainofmoraltheoriesthatguideandassessourchoicesofwhatweoughttodo(deontictheories),incontrastto(aretaic[virtue]theories)that—fundamentally,atleast—guideandassesswhatkindofperson(intermsofcharactertraits)weareandshouldbe.Andwithinthatdomain,deontologists—thosewhosubscribetodeontologicaltheoriesofmorality—standinoppositiontoconsequentialists.
∙1.Deontology'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'sFoil:
Consequentialism
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