I used to have deontological views when I was a teenager, but now have pure consequentialist views.

Consequentialism seems more scientific and less arbitrary than values and how they compete with each other. However the consequences we hope to achieve might be just as arbitrary.

I've never been intimately familiar with many fancy terms in philosophy, but from Googling let me know If I put these actions or beliefs in the correct place.

Consequentialism:

- If I invade a person's privacy because I was bored or just think they're up to something based on very little, and find they have a hit list or planned mass shooting and thus prevent it, that's right and was what I should have done.

- I fatally shoot a man who I see running into a crowded supermarket with body armor and an assault rifle, who perhaps, was about to go on a shooting spree. This is good and makes a good person.

Non-consequentialism:

- I respect my roommates privacy despite his frequent outbursts and rants and the fact he recently purchased a firearm that is his legal right, and he ends up hurting multiple people. I did nothing wrong, there was nothing I could or most importantly should have done.

- I see the same man running into a crowded supermarket with body armor and an assault rifle and just run because who knows perhaps he's an undercover law enforcement officer dispatching a true threat. Whether I'm right or wrong, I'm still right and did the right thing.

--

Or am i way off here?

(Social Engineer Explains)

The reality is, without one concept spectrum would be incomplete. You should not be biased to either one. You are expressing the principle and application of morality. That is a long conversation, so I will keep it short.

**** Morality ****

Morality is invention. A compromise of actions in expression for survival. Nature is neither moral or immoral. The perspective of morality is based off of how humans do not like to struggle. To prevent perspective struggle. Morality is not the same with every sub-species. One individual's pain is another's pleasure.

Humans are greatly influenced by our history. Most of human morality came from religious beliefs. This has greatly shaped humans in a negative way. If humans truly understood the concept of morality, then you would not have posted about the concepts related to the perspective of morality.

Respectfully,
Lloyd R Shisler

That seems right.

Take the US' Right to Bear Arms. Does this Right take precedence over the consequences? Although I'm a Brit, I think almost everyone would say, no.

How about Right to Freedom of Speech? Some speech is illegal due to its proven consequences.

The roommates privacy should be breached if there is even the slightest inkling he is a danger?

Does this Right take precedence over the consequences? — Down The Rabbit Hole

A tragedy can shock the heart and mind and even a national conscience , though like some heh "optimists" remind us in the face of tragedy.. be glad and thankful, for it could have always been much worse. I suppose, on occasion, better the devil you know.

How about Right to Freedom of Speech? Some speech is illegal due to its proven consequences. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Of course, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater when there isn't one, etc.

The roommates privacy should be breached if there is even the slightest inkling he is a danger? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don't think so, of course that's not what I was asking rather what scenarios fall under which schools of thought. I feel I have the gist of what differentiates one from the other but just to put it in my own terms (that I wish to be corrected if inaccurate)..

Consequentialism means things that would generally be immoral, illegal, and even reprehensible may actually be just if and only if the resulting actions create a larger benefit or prevent a greater tragedy.

Non-consequentialism shares a thing in common with many religions and perhaps even dogmas being that some things are simply disallowed and not in the picture, or the arsenal as it were. Never an option on the table. You can never do certain things just because you think or even perhaps know there will be some perceived benefit, perhaps simply because what may be a victory in battle could lead to a defeat in the war.. or some other unknown consequence seeing as humans are more ignorant than not especially when trying to be the opposite.

I think your explanations are correct. A non-consequentialist would see things as good and bad in and of themselves, whereas a consequentialist would say the same things are good and bad by virtue of their consequences.

The roommates privacy should be breached if there is even the slightest inkling he is a danger? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don't think so — Outlander

Because it is intrinsically bad to breach the roommates privacy, or because the inkling is not enough evidence? What about if it is more likely than not the roommate is a danger?

In ethics there is a great divide between two schools of thought: — Wheatley

There are more than two schools of thought. How about "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Easy to understand. Easy to apply. You don't have to figure out what the consequences of your actions will be before you can judge right from wrong.

Related to that there is "Follow your heart." To philosophicate it a bit:

When the heart is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

This is a slight mangling of Verse 38 of the Tao Te Ching as translated by Stephen Mitchell.

Both of these principles arise out of the understanding that humans are social animals. We like each other. We want to do well by each other.

Very good. :up: :sparkle:

I was thinking about this some more. It seems to me that consequentialism and deontological ethics are more about figuring out who to blame than how to decide how we should behave.

consequentialism and deontological ethics are more about figuring out who to blame than how to decide how we should behave. — T Clark

That right there is fuel for politicians.

Killing (a person), consequentialism vs deontological ethics:

1. All killings are bad. [deontological ethics]

2. Some killings are not bad [consequentialism]

The two theories contradict each other. I never knew!

The question that might provide some insight into the matter:

Ask both a consequentialist and a deontoligical ethicist,

3. Killing, raping, lying, cheating, etc. What would you prefer, that you,

a) never would have to do them

OR

b) sometimes would have to do them

?

I think deontological ethics wins hands down. Right? :chin:

The consequentialist engages in a form of fantasy, immediately confining his morality to weighing a limited variety of possible consequences (never all possible consequences) with their probabilities. So it is not so much about right action as it is about having the right thoughts before acting.

By “weighing” I don’t mean he uses any real unit of measure. There isn’t any. For while “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” implies that happiness is measurable, no unit of measure has been presented, and the consequentialist invents it ad hoc in order to appraise which course of action will lead the greater sum total of this or that human good (happiness, utility, pleasure, etc). None of that matters anyways because “the greater good” has no reference to the world or to flesh-and-blood human beings.

Worse than all that, the consequentialist can justify cruelty and injustice if such actions are required to satisfy his teleological desires. Better to do Justice though the heavens fall, in my mind.

Morality is invention. A compromise of actions in expression for survival. Nature is neither moral or immoral. The perspective of morality is based off of how humans do not like to struggle. To prevent perspective struggle. Morality is not the same with every sub-species. One individual's pain is another's pleasure. — ExistenceofSelf

Every time I see the words "morality is invention", I feel an unsettling feeling that makes me want to disengage. I think people use the word "invention", instead of "system" to preemptively unfold what's to come in the narrative. It is a loaded word. An ethical system is created by humans, yes. So it is an invention. But not in the sense that it is a make-believe that shouldn't be taken as if it's real.

If you want to understand how philosophers use the word "creative", ethics and morality is where you should search. Because creativity in ethics and morality means humans create a device, through imagining a world where this device, commonly known as a system, could function harmoniously, resulting in a philosophic system of ethics and morality that actually works.

That consequentialism can entail treating people as means rather than ends, and that this is absolutely valid in some situations, demonstrates the impossibility of formulating a coherent moral theory for actual life. In a world that is not already morally disqualified, there would not be a need to make these sort of sacrifices, a "second-best", a "better-but-not-good".

It may be the case that consequentialism is true, but it would be better if it were not.

Both perspectives are absurd on their own, only a synthesis of the two can arrive at a humane ethics.

Consequentialism is absurd because consequences are in principle unknowable before action. And, terrible actions may fortuitously have good consequences.

Deontology is absurd because it attempts a moral bureaucracy, subordinating human ends to arbitrary rules.

The best you can do is a consequentialist deontology: what are the consequences of these moral rules, versus those? You cannot know this at the outset, so you need to adjust with observation, and with changing circumstances.

This is what legal systems in their best form attempt.

Consequentialism about morality is silly. Invariably what consequentialists do is go from this intuitively plausible premise: 'this action is right because of its consequences'; to 'all actions are right because of their consequences'. That's stupid - it's like reasoning that as I like this cup of coffee because it is hot, I must like anything hot (and the hotter the better). It simply does not follow that because Xing in circumstances S was right due to the consequences of Xing, that therefore Ying in circumstances T must be right because of its consequences.

So, 'getting' to the consequentialist conclusion seems to involve committing a fallacy. The evidence adduced - that, intuitively, some acts are made right by their consequences - is used to support a conclusion that it does not support - that all right acts are made right by their consequences.

But as if that was not bad enough, the theory is exposed to a raft of counter-intuitive implications. For example, take the form of consequentialism known as utilitarianism. There are different kinds of utilitarian, but the two most prominent are hedonistic and preference utilitarians. The hedonistic utilitarian holds that the right act is the act that maximises happiness. And the preference utiltiarian holds that the right act is the act that satisfies the maximum quantity of preferences. Now take an obviously wrong act - such as an act of rape - and consider the utilitarian analysis. First, the utilitarian will have to count the pleasure and preferences of the rapist, not just those of the victim. Well, that's already absurd, yes? Even if their calculation delivers the right verdict - that the act is wrong - they got there in the wrong (indeed, obscene) manner: they weighed the happiness of the rapist against the hapiness of the rapist's victim. Yet intuitively the rapist's preferences and happiness count for nothing. No ethically right minded person would, for instance, consider the rapist's pleasure and preference satisfaction a silver lining to an otherwise unhappy, preference frustrating cloud! Second, if you have enough rapists getting enough pleasure from their act of rape, then the utilitarian won't even reach the correct verdict - there will come a point where the utility of the rapists outbalances the disutility of the victim. Yet intuitively it does not matter how many rapists are raping the person - the act is wrong regardless.

This is just the tip of an iceberg of counterexamples. I can only think that those who continue to find the theory plausible are more obsessed with 'having a theory' or reducing morality to some simple algorithm than they are in respecting the evidence.

The only reason that the concept is common, is to be in opposition of what is considered not healthy. If humans in general not only knew but implemented the concept correctly, hardly anyone would say that due to the obvious.

Humans predicate a lot of their actions in expression based off of moral perspective. Humans have a tremendous amount of problems due to the concept of morality. The concept is trying to be broken down and implemented in a new and better way.

Good deeds is to establish moral credit for future advantage or leveling and neutralizing; emotional, mental, and physical debt.