What sort of ethics do you subscribe to?

[ciphergoth]

Does the right thing to do depend only on the consequences, or are some acts inherently right or wrong no matter what likely consequences follow?

From Wikipedia:

Deontological ethics or deontology (Greek: δέον (deon) meaning 'obligation' or 'duty') is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions.

Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action.

Virtue theory is a branch of moral philosophy that emphasizes character, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking.

Which of these best describes your position?

[Poll #1225625]

Comments

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

if everyone went around running red lights all the time, there'd be loads of accidents. Here you're making a consequentialist argument for a deontological (Kantian) position. To me, this suggests your terminal values are consequentialist, but from this you derive instrumental values that value certain Kantian imperatives. I roughly agree with this; for example, I'd like to discourage lying to friends to the extent that people don't do so even when it seems the consequences would be better if they did, because although this means that a few decisions will go "the wrong way", overall it leads to a better world.

[andrewducker]

Yup - I tend to justify my deontological positions from their consequences, but having justified them I think of them as deontological.

[werenerd.livejournal.com]

>>overall it leads to a better world

Then even your Kantian imperatives are based on consequnces, thus I'd say you're a consequentialist through and through.

For example, if you knew there could be only positive consequences and no negative consequences in lying to a friend -- say they were about to die, and you could tell them something they wanted to hear which wasn't true -- then you'd do it, right?

[weegoddess.livejournal.com]

For example, if you knew there could be only positive consequences and no negative consequences in lying to a friend -- say they were about to die, and you could tell them something they wanted to hear which wasn't true -- then you'd do it, right?

I think I'd be tempted to do that anyway, because I love my friends. Not sure what that falls under.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm definitely a thoroughgoing consequentialist in my terminal values. However, my goal is not just to maximize happiness - if it were I'd aim for the world of Brave New World. So if the dying friend were someone who I knew would prefer the truth to a comfortable falsehood, I might well decide not to lie because I'd consider that their not getting what they want an *inherently* bad consequence that outweighed the difference in happiness.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

It does rather hinge on how you define harm. If you consider 'knowing the truth' to be less harmful because truth is good, then you would always tell the truth even if it caused temporary unhappiness.

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

But you'd have to then think that telling the truth always had good consequences!

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

But how are you defining "good" here?

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

Breathtaking. How could you possibly know what they would prefer in extremis, snd how could you measure "good2 or "bad" consequences in that situation?