According to the largest-ever survey of philosophers, they’re split 25-24-18 on deontology / consequentialism / virtue ethics,
???
I am confused. I lean towrds value ethics, and I can certainly see the appeal of consequentialism; but as I understand it, deontology is simply “follow the rules”, right?
I fail to see the appeal of that as a basis for ethics. (As a basis for avoiding confrontation, yes, but not as a basis for deciding what is right or wrong). It doesn’t seem to stand up well on inspection (who makes the rules? Surely they can’t be decided deontologically?)
So… what am I missing? Why is deontology more favoured than either of the other two options?
Deontology doens’t mean “follow any rules” or “follow given rules” or “be law abiding”. A deontologist can reject purported moral rules, just as a virtue theorist does not have to accept that copulaing with as many women as possible is “manly virtue”, just as a value theorist does not have to value blind patriotism. Etc.
ETA:
Surely they can’t be decided deontologically?
Meta-ethical systems ususally don’t supply their own methdology. Deontologists usually work out rules based on some specific deontological meta-rule or “maxim”, such as “follow on that rule one would wish to be universal law”. Deontologies may vary according to the selection of maxim.
Further, many philosophers think that Meta-Ethics and Normative Ethics can have sort of a “hard barrier” between them, so that one’s meta-ethical view may have no impact at all upon one’s acceptance of Deontology or Deontological systems.
EDIT: For the record, I think this is pretty ridiculous, but it’s worth noting that people believe it.
Meta-ethical systems ususally don’t supply their own methdology. Deontologists usually work out rules based on some specific deontological meta-rule or “maxim”, such as “follow on that rule one would wish to be universal law”. Deontologies may vary according to the selection of maxim.
Ah, thank you. This was the point that I was missing; that the choice of maxim to follow may be via some non-deontological method.
???
I am confused. I lean towrds value ethics, and I can certainly see the appeal of consequentialism; but as I understand it, deontology is simply “follow the rules”, right?
I fail to see the appeal of that as a basis for ethics. (As a basis for avoiding confrontation, yes, but not as a basis for deciding what is right or wrong). It doesn’t seem to stand up well on inspection (who makes the rules? Surely they can’t be decided deontologically?)
So… what am I missing? Why is deontology more favoured than either of the other two options?
Deontology doens’t mean “follow any rules” or “follow given rules” or “be law abiding”. A deontologist can reject purported moral rules, just as a virtue theorist does not have to accept that copulaing with as many women as possible is “manly virtue”, just as a value theorist does not have to value blind patriotism. Etc.
ETA:
Meta-ethical systems ususally don’t supply their own methdology. Deontologists usually work out rules based on some specific deontological meta-rule or “maxim”, such as “follow on that rule one would wish to be universal law”. Deontologies may vary according to the selection of maxim.
Further, many philosophers think that Meta-Ethics and Normative Ethics can have sort of a “hard barrier” between them, so that one’s meta-ethical view may have no impact at all upon one’s acceptance of Deontology or Deontological systems.
EDIT: For the record, I think this is pretty ridiculous, but it’s worth noting that people believe it.
Ah, thank you. This was the point that I was missing; that the choice of maxim to follow may be via some non-deontological method.
Now it makes sense. Many thanks.