Consequentialism and Deontology
Consequentialism says that the best action is to act in such a way that brings about the best outcome (consequence).
Deontology says that the best act is one that has the best motivation, regardless of the consequences.
Both of these theories have some major problems. On the former there is the chance, without a robust notion of justice, that the ends could always justify the means. The later, on the other hand, could lead, again without a strong notion of justice, to detrimental ends with no recourse to those that acted. There seems to be only one thing that can keep either one of these from unacceptable pit falls, that is justice.
Of course any notion of justice is going to have problems of its own. Underlying almost every notion of justice there is some other philosophical principle. And underlying those there is some antecedent predisposition toward one way of thinking or the other. With this in mind philosophers have spent years trying solve this underlying problem and the answer that many of come up with is an appeal reason. Like Hume, but not for the same reasons, I cannot see an answer in reason. Many rational people over the years have come to many different conclusions, each one as logical as the next. Even when applied to justice, reason has not done well with providing a good solution.
With this in mind, how are we to find a robust notion of justice, and thus define and defend philosophic ethical ideologies?
Deontology says that the best act is one that has the best motivation, regardless of the consequences.
Both of these theories have some major problems. On the former there is the chance, without a robust notion of justice, that the ends could always justify the means. The later, on the other hand, could lead, again without a strong notion of justice, to detrimental ends with no recourse to those that acted. There seems to be only one thing that can keep either one of these from unacceptable pit falls, that is justice.
Of course any notion of justice is going to have problems of its own. Underlying almost every notion of justice there is some other philosophical principle. And underlying those there is some antecedent predisposition toward one way of thinking or the other. With this in mind philosophers have spent years trying solve this underlying problem and the answer that many of come up with is an appeal reason. Like Hume, but not for the same reasons, I cannot see an answer in reason. Many rational people over the years have come to many different conclusions, each one as logical as the next. Even when applied to justice, reason has not done well with providing a good solution.
With this in mind, how are we to find a robust notion of justice, and thus define and defend philosophic ethical ideologies?
Comments
Post a Comment