Monday, August 1, 2011

Problems with Deontology

I have been thinking about moral philosophies recently and have been debating which seem the least problematic to me. Specifically I have been thinking about normative ethics, which is the branch of ethics that asks the question "How should one act?"

First I will summarize the two major normative theories on ethics.

  • Deontology - the normative theory that judges the morality of actions based the action itself, with no regard to the consequences of the action.
  • Consequentialism - the normative theory that judges the morality of actions based on the consequences of those actions alone.
There are other normative theories, virtue ethics for instance, but these two are the most popular and in my opinion the least problematic.

So to help explain what these normative theories are I will present the classic trolley thought experiment.

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

So the basic question is should you let the 5 die and save the 1 or kill the 1 and save the 5. Intuitively, I think most people will choose the latter, which is what the consequentialist theory would support. If you tweak the problem just a bit you may likely change your decision though:


As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

In this scenario most people would probably not push the fat man, killing him in order to save the 5. Why the consequences are the same? This inclination of many people seems to support deontology, where it is more important to do what is right, "not murder", regardless of the consequences. The ends do not justify the means.

Until recently I would side with deontology over consequentialism precisely because I felt that the ends do not justify the means. However a few things have been leading me to believe otherwise.

First of all the latter scenario may not have the same consequences as the first. The consequences of pushing the man off the bridge are not the same as flipping the switch.

  1. I think there are different consequences between indirect action and direct actions in terms of the guilt that are likely to be felt as a result of the action. Killing someone directly with your hands and flipping the switch will not have the same emotional consequences.
  2. This may lead to others not to trust you or others. If you are willing to use others as tools to achieve "better" ends you may be ostracized. If actions like this were taken regularly by all people this would also greatly destabilize society which would be a very negative consequence.
 Not only are the consequences worse, would people feel the same if the stakes were higher? What if instead of saving 5 you would be saving 50? 500? 500,000? What if instead of saving 5 adults you were saving 5 innocent children? What if the five children were your children?

The point being, the higher the stakes the more likely people will be willing to push the man off the bridge, in essence supporting the view of consequentialism. Is doing the right thing really that important that all consequences become mute?

It also seems that deontology could be viewed as essentially a selfish normative theory, in that it doesn't seem to be concerned with the well being of others, but rather is focused on the moral "purity" of the person performing the moral act. It doesn't matter if hundreds die, as long as I am in the right and can't be condemned of any wrongdoing.

What do you think?

6 comments:

  1. Then i think if Pinhas was in the category of consequentialism, i would think most Hasidim would fall under this heading. At the time he offered himself up for judgement which could have led to his death, but instead was found in Adonai's favor by acting on what he thought was the perfect will of Hashem. Sometimes i think the action out weighs the thought, and one just has to act because sometime we don't have time to think about the moral consequences, but rather hope that through a strong moral center through study of the Torah when that time comes it is innate to one's being. yochanan

    ReplyDelete
  2. For background on the above post:

    John Henry Allen: Shalom Daniel, thought provoking. I know are sages asked this Q: if you had 2 houses on fire, one with 5 tzeddekim, HaShem forbid, and one house on fire with 1 Bastard child, which one do you save. A: the bastard child because it will be 3 generations before his offspring will have the opportunity to reach Tzeddik. HaShem is in control, and who should die will die. r.yochanan

    Daniel Rosenberg: Interesting. The reasoning seems to support a consequentialist view, but from a very different path. I don't think this reasoning would be employed by most consequentialists. Most may argue for the life of the child over the three elderly tzaddikim because it would increase overall happiness/well being and decrease overall pain and suffering. The boy has a chance to fulfill so much potential and the elders have lived their life. The grief of the parents and family of the child would also likely be worse than the grief people would feel over the elder tzaddkim, because as said before they lived a full life of good deeds and accomplished much.

    Daniel Rosenberg: I am a little confused though over what the overall gain is from there being 3 generations before there could a person who is a Tzaddik who is descended from them. Would it be better if there were fewer generations between or more, according to Chazal?

    Daniel Rosenberg: Thanks for your thoughts again. If you have time I would appreciate it if you wouldn't mind posting on the blog as well, so that others who come across it who don't necessarily know me on facebook could read them as well. Thanks

    John Henry Allen: I am not sure where i remember that teaching from: it seems like some Hebraic literature. i read talmud, midrashim, pirke aboth and kabbalah, but i am certain of the correctness of the answer. How would you describe Pinhas actions were in the Torah?

    Daniel Rosenberg: Are you speaking about his actions at the end of parsha Balak?

    John Henry Allen: yes where he kills Zimri, chieftain of the ancestral house of Simeon for sleeping with the Midianite women. As for post on the blog i have tried but was unable because it ask me a profile to post in???

    Daniel Rosenberg: let me fix that

    John Henry Allen: i still be interested in your take what category you place Pinhas actions in? especially after Hashem rewarded him? i think may there exist something in between?

    Daniel Rosenberg: btw you can comment, just select the "Select Profile..." dropdown box. Select either anonymous or name/URL and you can comment without a profile

    John Henry Allen: todah

    Daniel Rosenberg: Well there are many things that could be said of Pinchas. It is entirely possible that within the context of Tanach he knew that killing the 2 would save countless more from the Plague that would continue to ensue, in which case he was very much a consequentialist.

    Daniel Rosenberg: The plague which had killed already thousands was ceased, so Pinchas chose to save thousands over 2 people who according to the Tanach were part of the reason the plague existed in the first place

    Daniel Rosenberg: But this brings up an interesting question on consequentialism. Is intent important, for instance is it necessary for the person acting to believe he will increase happiness/well being and decrease pain/suffering for it to be moral from a consequentialist standpoint or does intent not matter, only what actually occurs? If the former is true than that doesn't seem to be a pure consequentialist standpoint, but rather is veering into deontology. Makes it more difficult to be a consequentialist if that is the case, imo.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Daniel, as i was having my evening meal it occurred to me that all of Israel may fall under the CONSEQUENTIALISM concept for this reason: When given the 10 Commandments at Mt. Sinai the Israelites first response was the word "DO". We will DO, and we will hear as the Torah teaches. "DO" being the optimal word. DEONOTOLOGY is what Moshe did by striking the rock to bring forth water, rather that doing as Hashem instructed him to do which was to speak to the rock. Based on this theology all of Yisrael maybe CONSEQUENTIALIST? final thoughts, great subject, yochanan

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well I would actually say the opposite. Since deontology is concerned with "doing" or the action itself, (the word "deon" is actually from the greek meaning "obligation/duty"). Since action is the primary thing, that seems to be the main philosophy behind the ten commandments.

    Consequentialism isn't very concerned with the action itself or doing in general but rather is focused on the consequences of actions. So Moshe hitting the rock seems more in vein with a consequentialist perspective, since he does so against the command of Hashem (going against his "duty") and instead does so to feed the Children of Israel with water (for the consequences rather than his duty).

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree that Jewish philosophy may be a form of deontology since we often translate the word "mitzvah" as "obligation" and we DO those mitzvos out of an obligation/duty to Hashem.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with your explanation. thanks, yochanan

    ReplyDelete

Check this out