Utilitarianism V Deontological Theories

roberteboot

Well i thought i should introduce myself somehow and why not start a new thread.
Ive only started reading philosophy recently(VERY recently) but there hasnt seemed to be that many discussions going on here so i thought i would start one up.Please excuse any rookie mistakes i might make.

From what i can gather Utilitarianists are of the opinion that the right action is always the action that has the consequence of making as many people as possible as happy as possible.An "end justifies the means" sort of situation.
Deontological Theories state that the only absolute valuable thing in the universe is a good will and that the action is what is important-therefore you should always tell the truth,always be honest,never make false promises etc.

So basically i was just wondering where people stand on these issues,the potential problems people see in them and potential solutions.Basically all i want to do is to get some sort of discussion going if people fancy it.

Crubeens

From a personal point of view, always doing the fundamentally right and truthful thing is obviously the 'right' way. However, the fact is that people don't always want to hear the truth, so always adhering strictly to that way of life won't neccessarily get you what or where you want.

Trying to combine the two theories in your life may not work either, because by their very nature they seem to be mutually exclusive. Strictly speaking, you have to go one way or the other.

Maybe the world has a healthy mixture of both kinds of people or attitudes, so things balance out.

KnowItAll

I would think that the deontological theory would be better in the long term.
I think that Utilitarianists only think about the short term mostly.

E.g Instead of a rich father buying his son a car he would make the son work for the car. This wouldn't make the son happy but it would benifit him in the long term.

roberteboot

But what about the case of an criminal who offers to give the police information on more notorious criminals in return for immunity from prosecution.
The utilitarian would grant immunity,because the overall benefit to society would outweigh the benefit of prosecuting just the informer.
The deontologist however would insist that justice be done and that the informer be punished for past crimes.There could be no deal done.And the other, more dangerous criminals would remain free.

This isnt my own example, i remember reading it somewhere, but i think its a good counter point.

DadaKopf

It's a fine example. Kant would also say in a case where taking action to prevent an injustice, which may itself breach moral law, you're better off doing nothing.

Example: if someone is going to attack you with a knife and kill you, just in case you kill him, you're probably better off not doing anything because at least you remained moral until the end.

It's important to mention at this point: these are not the only two ethical positions. And there's not just one form of justice. Two common forms are restorative justice and redistributive justice.

Anyway, utilitarianism, for example, can often be an excuse for totalitarianism (Stalinism, Capitalism). Moral law can often be an excuse for totalitarianism. One view can tend to ignore individual freedom in favour of the masses for political or economic expediency. The other remains based in essentialist theories of morality, the origins of which are analytically dubious and often beyond the scope of rational enquiry.

It seems to me a radical re-reading of morality is required.

KnowItAll

Stalanism and Capitalism are good examples.

In todays society it's based more and more on utilitarianism. The common people are getting paid more money which means holidays, fancy cars etc. They also have more freedom (booze, prostitues etc) but what it means is they are working longer hours, are more stressed and most importantly less happy in the long run. This type of society benefits few as the richer people are generally less happy too.

roberteboot

KnowItAll wrote:

Stalanism and Capitalism are good examples.

In todays society it's based more and more on utilitarianism. The common people are getting paid more money which means holidays, fancy cars etc. They also have more freedom (booze, prostitues etc) but what it means is they are working longer hours, are more stressed and most importantly less happy in the long run. This type of society benefits few as the richer people are generally less happy too.

If people are less happy then surely it isnt utilitarianism?I mean i could be wrong.Maybe its masquerading as utilitarianism.As in the state(or whoever) would like us to believe thats its resulting in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people while its actually just benefitting the state.
It seems like its neither.
Feel free to correct me.Im just getting into this kind of stuff and trying to get to grips with it.

roberteboot

DadaKopf wrote:

And there's not just one form of justice. Two common forms are restorative justice and redistributive justice.

Could you explain these?If they cant be easily summed up you can tell me to **** off and go look for myself!

DadaKopf wrote:

Anyway, utilitarianism, for example, can often be an excuse for totalitarianism (Stalinism, Capitalism).

I could use a bit of explanation here too...

DadaKopf

KnowItAll wrote:

Stalanism and Capitalism are good examples.

Nah, they're extreme examples. I prefer looking at familiar, mundane examples, like you do below.

In todays society it's based more and more on utilitarianism. The common people are getting paid more money which means holidays, fancy cars etc. They also have more freedom (booze, prostitues etc) but what it means is they are working longer hours, are more stressed and most importantly less happy in the long run. This type of society benefits few as the richer people are generally less happy too.

Well, I'm not really making judgements like this right now, and I suppose this is a philosophy forum so we should discuss philosophy.

To put what you said another way, political and economic liberalism requires some kind of mechanism by which decisions can be made by the state in a way that's (ostensibly) impartial, or as Kant would say, "disinterested". Utilitarianism, effectively, uses "the market" to make decisions - the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In this sense, the Good is an empirical natural law (not the same as Locke's 'natural rights').

The market is based on the principle of individual private ownership of property, and it's believed that the market provides all. As Adam Smith said:

Adam Smith wrote:

Every individual...generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

It's not the best quote about this but he basically says that the market (the 'invisible hand') will ensure the common good when men (not women, blacks) act in their own self-interest. Maximising one's own happiness is also a way to maximise everyone's. But interestingly, Smith can only defend his position, arrived at through observation, by relying on God - it's God that assures our liberty so long as we obey the natural laws of the universe. So, in a way, this argument may also be deontological - the goodness of deontology is based on an essentialist notion of the universe, in this case, the moral law of God.

Perhaps, then, utilitarianism and deontology exist in a continuum, or the distinction is erroneous. Perhaps utilitarianism is just a scientistic rationalisation of superstition. A confusion of means and ends.

But these are not the only two ethical positions.

Two approaches I've been looking at recently are Habermas' discourse ethics and Foucault's radical crypto-anarchism.

Habermas is really influential. Wikipedia says:

[He] considers his own major achievement the development of the concept and theory of communicative reason or communicative rationality, which distinguishes itself from the rationalist tradition by locating rationality in structures of interpersonal linguistic communication rather than in the structure of either the cosmos or the knowing subject.

He puts forward a theory called Discourse Ethics. Through this, Habermas tries to preserve a universalist ethics that defendible opposes relativist postmodern critiques. He thinks not doing so implies abandoning the emancipatory objective of the enlightenment, and opens the door to authoritarianism.

By studying the speech-act, he argues that any utterance containing words like "should" or "ought" implies a tacit assumption that one's moral norms (like "you shouldn't be racist") are valid for all people. (These "illocutionary" utterances are different from referential or inferential statements like "the Pope is a man" (referential) or "X is married to Y", inferring a particular form of relation between X and Y (inferential), because speech-acts affect the world.) Doing this as humans do, every day, we can say we're universally rational, but importantly, our rationality is tied up in our structures of language - that is, our thought and action is tied up with the development of our society.)

Discourse ethics assumes that talking rationally with one another is the opposite of conflict, and doing so can liberate us from war and domination because genuinely talking to and understanding each other have emancipatory effects on the world. But for this to happen, three conditions have to be in place:

1. Freedom (absence of coercion)
2. Equality (to participate in public discourse)
3. Consensus (the uncoerced agreement of all who are affected by a decision)

Basically everyone gets together, declares their interests and agrees to try to really understand each other in order to reach a consensual, pragmatic universal ethic.

The principles of Discourse Ethics are:

1. Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to take part in a discourse. 2a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.

2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the discourse.

2c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires, and needs.

3. No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from exercising his rights as laid down in (1) and (2). (86)

Such rules are seen to circumscribe the ideal speech situation, one which stresses equality and freedom for each participant - especially

freedom to participate in the discourse in critical ways so as to express one's own attitudes, desires, and needs, and

freedom from coercion of several sorts.

So it's pretty cool, like! Some people may think it's like Rawls' Original Position; but while Rawls wants people to discuss ethics under a veil of ignorance, really as an instrument to arrive at a metaphysical, universal morality, Habermas doesn't entirely accept that universal morality is immanent (i.e. an emergent property) of rational discourse; morality is still sort of something invented by us so while we may have different visions of morality, what's important is that we communicate rationally, exchange understandings and reach consensus in the hope that we can, one day, achieve rational universality. We at least have to act as if it's possible.

Foucault had problems with this, though. He particularly had problems with consensus. Habermas tried to get to grips with power, but maintained, as Enlightenment rationalists did, that power can be circumvented by rational discourse. Foucault argued that, firstly, this presented a negative view of power (power bad/talk good) and, secondly, power is unavoidable. Power is a necessary condition of human relations - physical or verbal - at all levels of life. The point shouldn't be to avoid power, but to locate points where power can be emancipatory. But he rejected universality and consensus - what we call 'consensus' is the "freezing" of discourses of power that, otherwise, are in a state of violent disequilibrium. So any discourse is, at base, an expression of some constellation of power, but not necessarily a bad one.

I could go on, but I'm tired and busy, and maybe zinc might like to expand on Foucault's aesthetic ethics.

That's me done for now.

DadaKopf

roberteboot wrote:

Could you explain these?If they cant be easily summed up you can tell me to **** off and go look for myself!

Distributive justice: the fair allocation of resources across a community.
Restorative justice: the victim expresses impact of crime to the criminal and agreement is reached with the criminal on what will set things right.
Retributive justice: "eye for an eye".

I could use a bit of explanation here too...

Well, utilitarianism isn't too far from economics and other abstract social sciences. Science implies detachment. It's been easy in the past for totalitarians, and even Western liberal governments, to use numbers to justify untold abuse and violence on populations. This is the danger of rationalisation and instrumental reason. Moral rules (greatest happiness for the greatest number) emerge merely as a tool to achieve the common good - and we all know how despots have used this as an excuse to exploit entire populations. The phrase "reason of the state" springs to mind.

Then again, maybe I'm completely wrong about utilitarianism:

David Hume was perhaps the first person to suggest that there might not be any intrinsic or metaphysical value of rules, but that they are simply secular and natural rules that are human-made.

But it probably depends on your interpretation.

Zaph0d

Two extreme ethical positions.Clear counter examples shown that neither is fully correct. Surprise surprise: the truth lies in between. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Same for socioeconomic systems. The best option has evolved to be neither capitalism nor communism but the mixed economy. It's not sexy, has no cult leaders, no little red book, yet it has proven so far to be the optimal system.

DadaKopf

This thread isn't about capitalism and communism (actually a mixed economy is capitalism and socialism). It's about ethics - we've just steered the discussion within the context of Liberalism.

davej

In terms of morality, I think the phrase "In a society of saints there would still be sinners" rings true. In such a society for example, not saying your morning prayers at 5am might be considered as abhorrent as paedophilia is to western society.

The Kantian maxim, "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law", is problematic for me because it assumes we can always rationally determine what the effects of willing that something become a universal law would be. In the case above an individual might fear that God would destroy the world if everyone stopped praying to him or (more mundanely) that it would lead to societal breakdown and chaos.

Utilitarianism is interesting as it suggests that there is some sort of "happiness quotient" that can be spread amongst society. Its pragmatic approach to morality can bring about some interesting scenarios. But still there is always the horizon problem i.e. not being able to predict the long term consequences of one's actions.

davej

DadaKopf

Totally, dude.

KnowItAll

roberteboot wrote:

If people are less happy then surely it isnt utilitarianism?I mean i could be wrong.Maybe its masquerading as utilitarianism.As in the state(or whoever) would like us to believe thats its resulting in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people while its actually just benefitting the state.
It seems like its neither.
Feel free to correct me.Im just getting into this kind of stuff and trying to get to grips with it.

I see your point. I was talking long term. What I should have said is utilitarianism is good for shorter term happiness but maybe not so good for the long term.

Maybe getting a right balance between utilitarianism and deontological would benefit society best.

DadaKopf

Why do you think that?

davej

Another problem with utilitarianism i see is: exactly how do you go about measuring happiness in society?

Do you hand out a survey and ask people how happy they feel on a scale of 1 to 10 ?
In a totalitarian state, I'm sure it's highly likely that people would report that they are very happy for fear of reprisals from the state.

From a functionalist point of view, crime and other "immoral acts" could be construed as having a positive role for society:
It helps keep society stable by acting as a pressure release mechanism.
It also unites "normal" people by allowing them to define themselves in opposition to this percieved threat to society.
It allows for evolution of society as factors, such as changing technology, challenge the sustainability of the present system.

Of course, there is a point where too much deviant behaviour of a certain type can damage the stability of society.

If society can be said to have any "purpose" at all, it would be to perpetuate itself (and possibly expand itself). Morality is really just a manifestation of this phenomenon, as seen from the subjective point of view of the individual.

davej

KnowItAll

DadaKopf wrote:

Why do you think that?

I read somewhere once that people these days are less happy than back in times gone by, despite the improved quality of life. Society today rewards people greatly but people's morals are slipping. They are less happy in the long run.

Like being on drugs, people are on a high one minute and there must be a low after that.

This is my opinion on whats happening in todays society. I should also say that I'm generalising, which probally goes without saying! There are also instances of utilitarism benefiting society in the long term like the example Roberteboot gave:

Roberteboot wrote:

But what about the case of an criminal who offers to give the police information on more notorious criminals in return for immunity from prosecution.
The utilitarian would grant immunity,because the overall benefit to society would outweigh the benefit of prosecuting just the informer.
The deontologist however would insist that justice be done and that the informer be punished for past crimes.There could be no deal done.And the other, more dangerous criminals would remain free.

McFiddler

I believe that deontology is a more selfish view than utilitarianism because one is obeying a moral code which is only self interested. So in one way it is a self contradicting view because wouldn't selfishness be considered morally wrong?

If an ugly person asks if they are ugly, a deontologist will say that yes they are ugly with an interest only in telling the truth so that they themselves can feel content in the fact that they told the truth, whereas a utilitarian will say 'no of course not' with an interest only in the other persons feelings.

KnowItAll wrote:

I would think that the deontological theory would be better in the long term.

Can you argue that in the above example the ugly person will benifit from the deontologists answer?

DadaKopf

I believe that deontology is a more selfish view than utilitarianism because one is obeying a moral code which is only self interested. So in one way it is a self contradicting view because wouldn't selfishness be considered morally wrong?

If an ugly person asks if they are ugly, a deontologist will say that yes they are ugly with an interest only in telling the truth so that they themselves can feel content in the fact that they told the truth, whereas a utilitarian will say 'no of course not' with an interest only in the other persons feelings.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think that's what deontology is. You're looking at it from the perspective of someone being hurt at hearing the truth, or something like that, in a social situation. That's selfish by definition.

The deontological view holds that things are objectively, universally good in themselves. Kant's formulation is a universalist formulation - you have to think about the impact of a moral decision you make as if you were making it for all mankind for all time. If the consequences of universalising your act produces 'bad outcomes', it's objectively, universally, for all times, bad. Not subjective at all, it's a matter of the laws of the universe.

Utilitarianism isn't so unselfish either. It's based on the libertarian notion that individuals seeking their own self-interest will contribute to the common good, but it places before that a mechanism of ensuring that good decisions will be made by people and governments to the benefit of the maximum number. So, utilitarianism claims to be a pragmatic, scientifically based moral framework.

Whether utilitarianism is about people's feelings or about numbers is a tricky one. Some say you can't measure happiness, only people know their own happiness (and sometimes they dont even know that), and whose right is it for someone to take decisions based on their ideas about what makes me happy? To me, utilitarianism ends up not taking individual people's feelings into account but runs a numbers game based on the minimum things a society needs to provide to keep people from being so unhappy they revolt. OK, put another way, it's not about individual happiness, it's about the happiness of the greatest number, to the detriment of those who aren't part of that happiness package.

Or something.

Can you argue that in the above example the ugly person will benifit from the deontologists answer?

Like I said, I think both theories are crappy.