Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Deontology ad absurdum

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 10:22:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A question for the deontologists (Kantians, natural law theorists, divine command theorists etc.).

If there is a "moral" rule/law that if followed in some scenarios leads to the worst possible suffering of every conscious being in existence (including myself), why should I follow it?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
the-good-teacher
Posts: 444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 12:14:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 10:22:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
A question for the deontologists (Kantians, natural law theorists, divine command theorists etc.).

If there is a "moral" rule/law that if followed in some scenarios leads to the worst possible suffering of every conscious being in existence (including myself), why should I follow it?
======================
If you don't someone else will ! the result is the same (all suffer) except you lose your Moral standing
---------------------------------------
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 12:39:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 10:22:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
A question for the deontologists (Kantians, natural law theorists, divine command theorists etc.).

If there is a "moral" rule/law that if followed in some scenarios leads to the worst possible suffering of every conscious being in existence (including myself), why should I follow it?

Why would you even think that's possible?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 12:44:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 10:22:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
A question for the deontologists (Kantians, natural law theorists, divine command theorists etc.).

If there is a "moral" rule/law that if followed in some scenarios leads to the worst possible suffering of every conscious being in existence (including myself), why should I follow it?

Elaborate on that.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 12:47:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 12:44:33 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/20/2010 10:22:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
A question for the deontologists (Kantians, natural law theorists, divine command theorists etc.).

If there is a "moral" rule/law that if followed in some scenarios leads to the worst possible suffering of every conscious being in existence (including myself), why should I follow it?

Elaborate on that.

What's the purpose of following inflexible moral rules (in the case of "hard" deontology) in cases where the consequences are awful for everyone involved, with little or no positive good coming out of it.

Deontologists like that would usually make the comment that consequences don't matter; problem is, that's a cop out.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 12:47:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 12:47:27 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/21/2010 12:44:33 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/20/2010 10:22:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
A question for the deontologists (Kantians, natural law theorists, divine command theorists etc.).

If there is a "moral" rule/law that if followed in some scenarios leads to the worst possible suffering of every conscious being in existence (including myself), why should I follow it?

Elaborate on that.

What's the purpose of following inflexible moral rules (in the case of "hard" deontology) in cases where the consequences are awful for everyone involved, with little or no positive good coming out of it?

Deontologists like that would usually make the comment that consequences don't matter; problem is, that's a cop out.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 1:30:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What's the purpose of following inflexible moral rules (in the case of "hard" deontology) in cases where the consequences are awful for everyone involved, with little or no positive good coming out of it.

Deontologists like that would usually make the comment that consequences don't matter; problem is, that's a cop out.

Begging the question - a deontologist would precisely say that consequences are not part of moral equations. Meaning the "little or no positive good" you speak of is, at the very least, not of moral consideration.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 1:34:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 1:30:55 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:

Begging the question - a deontologist would precisely say that consequences are not part of moral equations. Meaning the "little or no positive good" you speak of is, at the very least, not of moral consideration.

But most deontologists espouse some form of the principle of double effect.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 1:38:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 1:30:55 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
What's the purpose of following inflexible moral rules (in the case of "hard" deontology) in cases where the consequences are awful for everyone involved, with little or no positive good coming out of it.

Deontologists like that would usually make the comment that consequences don't matter; problem is, that's a cop out.

Begging the question - a deontologist would precisely say that consequences are not part of moral equations. Meaning the "little or no positive good" you speak of is, at the very least, not of moral consideration.

That's the point of Freeman's question: what's the purpose of following a rule when the consequences of following it are that terrible? It's a challenge to the hard deontological rigidity.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 1:59:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Morality is absurd.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 2:01:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
But most deontologists espouse some form of the principle of double effect.

I was under the assumption Freeman was referring to the hardened deontologists, albeit ones we don't find often in contemporary philosophy.

That's the point of Freeman's question: what's the purpose of following a rule when the consequences of following it are that terrible? It's a challenge to the hard deontological rigidity.

A classical problem I suppose, one that many find intuitive.Though, it should be said that the same can be said about consequentialism in the same manner. How do you, Freeman, deal with similar scenarios when Preference Utilitarian is attacked?
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 2:04:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 1:59:07 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Morality is absurd.

And yet (I assume) you still oppose the subsidization of positive externalities and the taxation of negative ones. Sounds like a value judgment to me.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 2:13:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So there's no deontologists here on DDO or what?

Also, Skeptic, I recall you saying that the Intentionality Moral theory was Deontological Ethics, however that's not the case.

Intentionality ethics are based on the intent of the actions whereas Deontological ethics are about duty, not intent.

The one thing they do have in common though, is that the consequences don't matter, though deontologists take it a bit further. Intentionality ethics take consequences into account as part of the intent.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 2:20:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 2:04:49 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/21/2010 1:59:07 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Morality is absurd.

And yet (I assume) you still oppose the subsidization of positive externalities and the taxation of negative ones. Sounds like a value judgment to me.

You assume incorrectly.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 2:23:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 2:20:24 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 9/21/2010 2:04:49 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/21/2010 1:59:07 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Morality is absurd.

And yet (I assume) you still oppose the subsidization of positive externalities and the taxation of negative ones. Sounds like a value judgment to me.

You assume incorrectly.

An explanation accompanying your comments would be nice.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 2:31:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 2:20:24 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 9/21/2010 2:04:49 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/21/2010 1:59:07 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Morality is absurd.

And yet (I assume) you still oppose the subsidization of positive externalities and the taxation of negative ones. Sounds like a value judgment to me.

You assume incorrectly.

So you're not an anarchist anymore?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 2:42:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 10:22:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
A question for the deontologists (Kantians, natural law theorists, divine command theorists etc.).

If there is a "moral" rule/law that if followed in some scenarios leads to the worst possible suffering of every conscious being in existence (including myself), why should I follow it?

Not really a problem for most divine command theorists. Such as scenario would never arise.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 2:50:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 2:13:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So there's no deontologists here on DDO or what?

Also, Skeptic, I recall you saying that the Intentionality Moral theory was Deontological Ethics, however that's not the case.

Not sure where or when I stated that, and if I did my bad.

Intentionality ethics are based on the intent of the actions whereas Deontological ethics are about duty, not intent.

In a significant sense, an actor's intentions are quite important for deontological theories as well. In the case of the categorical imperative, your intent is a crucial element.

The one thing they do have in common though, is that the consequences don't matter, though deontologists take it a bit further. Intentionality ethics take consequences into account as part of the intent.

I haven't heard of the label "intentionality ethics". Examples?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 2:52:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 2:42:00 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/20/2010 10:22:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
A question for the deontologists (Kantians, natural law theorists, divine command theorists etc.).

If there is a "moral" rule/law that if followed in some scenarios leads to the worst possible suffering of every conscious being in existence (including myself), why should I follow it?

Not really a problem for most divine command theorists. Such as scenario would never arise.

Yup.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 3:06:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 10:22:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
why should I follow it?

This should come before the reductio; if the justification for following a moral theory is inadequate, the reductio is unnecessary. That and it arguably doesn't adequately represent anything you wish to attack. :P
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 4:36:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 2:23:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/21/2010 2:20:24 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 9/21/2010 2:04:49 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/21/2010 1:59:07 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Morality is absurd.

And yet (I assume) you still oppose the subsidization of positive externalities and the taxation of negative ones. Sounds like a value judgment to me.

You assume incorrectly.

An explanation accompanying your comments would be nice.

He's been desperate for a chance to explain his new radical view of morality. Reasoning, why don't you just state your opinion instead of practically begging everyone to inquire. Stop beating around the bush. I'm sure your explanation won't be something none of us philosophy students haven't heard of before lol go for it.
President of DDO
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 5:38:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 4:36:18 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/21/2010 2:23:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/21/2010 2:20:24 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 9/21/2010 2:04:49 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/21/2010 1:59:07 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Morality is absurd.

And yet (I assume) you still oppose the subsidization of positive externalities and the taxation of negative ones. Sounds like a value judgment to me.

You assume incorrectly.

An explanation accompanying your comments would be nice.

He's been desperate for a chance to explain his new radical view of morality. Reasoning, why don't you just state your opinion instead of practically begging everyone to inquire. Stop beating around the bush. I'm sure your explanation won't be something none of us philosophy students haven't heard of before lol go for it.

http://www.debate.org...
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 6:15:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 12:39:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/20/2010 10:22:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
A question for the deontologists (Kantians, natural law theorists, divine command theorists etc.).

If there is a "moral" rule/law that if followed in some scenarios leads to the worst possible suffering of every conscious being in existence (including myself), why should I follow it?

Why would you even think that's possible?

It's a thought experiment; it doesn't have to be possible. At any rate, it could be modified to be more realistic, and the same issue would still arise.

So... yeah.... I'm still waiting for an answer popculturepooka, Kenyon.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 6:18:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 6:15:39 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 9/21/2010 12:39:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/20/2010 10:22:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
A question for the deontologists (Kantians, natural law theorists, divine command theorists etc.).

If there is a "moral" rule/law that if followed in some scenarios leads to the worst possible suffering of every conscious being in existence (including myself), why should I follow it?

Why would you even think that's possible?

It's a thought experiment; it doesn't have to be possible. At any rate, it could be modified to be more realistic, and the same issue would still arise.


So... yeah.... I'm still waiting for an answer popculturepooka, Kenyon.

I would say to go for the "murderer at the door" scenario, but I'm not sure whether that works as well against regular deontologists as it does against Kantians.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 6:25:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 6:15:39 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 9/21/2010 12:39:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/20/2010 10:22:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
A question for the deontologists (Kantians, natural law theorists, divine command theorists etc.).

If there is a "moral" rule/law that if followed in some scenarios leads to the worst possible suffering of every conscious being in existence (including myself), why should I follow it?

Why would you even think that's possible?

It's a thought experiment; it doesn't have to be possible. At any rate, it could be modified to be more realistic, and the same issue would still arise.


So... yeah.... I'm still waiting for an answer popculturepooka, Kenyon.

It certainly has to be coherent and I'm not even sure that it is ...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 6:27:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
To add on to the OP: as far as I understand, Libertarianism is deontological (i.e. the rule is that you respect others' autonomy). So Libertarianism if hypothetically resulted in the greatest possible suffering of everyone on earth, would you still support Libertarianism? If not, you can't call yourself a Libertarian.

At 9/21/2010 2:01:52 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
That's the point of Freeman's question: what's the purpose of following a rule when the consequences of following it are that terrible? It's a challenge to the hard deontological rigidity.

A classical problem I suppose, one that many find intuitive.Though, it should be said that the same can be said about consequentialism in the same manner. How do you, Freeman, deal with similar scenarios when Preference Utilitarian is attacked?

How could the same be said about consequentialism? I'm afraid I don't understand.

Cody_Franklin wrote:
I would say to go for the "murderer at the door" scenario, but I'm not sure whether that works as well against regular deontologists as it does against Kantians.

So you would refute Kant's logically-grounded argument by pointing out a scenario that you disagree with based on your preconceived notions of morality rather than on logic?
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 6:36:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 2:01:52 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
But most deontologists espouse some form of the principle of double effect.

I was under the assumption Freeman was referring to the hardened deontologists, albeit ones we don't find often in contemporary philosophy.

That's the point of Freeman's question: what's the purpose of following a rule when the consequences of following it are that terrible? It's a challenge to the hard deontological rigidity.

A classical problem I suppose, one that many find intuitive. Though, it should be said that the same can be said about consequentialism in the same manner.

How so?

How do you, Freeman, deal with similar scenarios when Preference Utilitarian is attacked?

I guess it would depend. What scenarios do you have in mind?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 6:38:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 1:59:07 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Morality is absurd.

That sentence is absurd. :P
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 6:39:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 1:59:07 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Morality is absurd.:

Well, you've already hanged yourself. Congratulations.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)