This sounds suspiciously like evaluating deontology by saying “well, it doesn’t lead to maximum utility.”
In order to make this work you need to justify the properties of utility-maximization that you use from common principles—if these principles (consequentialism being the notable one here, I think) are not accepted, then of course the utilitarian answer won’t be accepted.
Deontology violates the principle “Two wrongs don’t make a right” and this bothers me.
I don’t understand your point here. Deontology can implement all sorts of “two wrongs make a right” rules. It also seems strange to see deontology criticised for violating what appears to be more or less a deontological principle itself.
To be honest it seems like Manfred suggested a quite reasonable way to evaluate deontology:
This sounds suspiciously like evaluating deontology by saying “well, it doesn’t lead to maximum utility.”
Damn right. Deontology makes bad stuff happen. Don’t do it!
I don’t understand your point here. Deontology can implement all sorts of “two wrongs make a right” rules. It also seems strange to see deontology criticised for violating what appears to be more or less a deontological principle itself.
I think you misunderstand what I mean by “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. It’s not a moral rule, it’s a logical (perhaps meta-moral?) rule. It says that if an action is wrong, and another action is wrong, then doing the first action, then the second, in rapid succession is wrong.
With enough logical rules like that, you can prove the existence of a preference order, thus deriving consequentialism.
Damn right. Deontology makes bad stuff happen. Don’t do it!
This is roughly my perspective, of course, I don’t think this argument would convince many deontologists.
This is another way of explaining why some of my posts in this thread are downvoted.
This is roughly my perspective, of course, I don’t think this argument would convince many deontologists.
Of course not. (I don’t find it all that useful to try to convince people to not have objectionable preferences of any kind. It does not tend to work.)
This is another way of explaining why some of my posts in this thread are downvoted.
Because you are arguing with deontologists? That was approximately my conclusion.
This sounds suspiciously like evaluating deontology by saying “well, it doesn’t lead to maximum utility.”
In order to make this work you need to justify the properties of utility-maximization that you use from common principles—if these principles (consequentialism being the notable one here, I think) are not accepted, then of course the utilitarian answer won’t be accepted.
I’m using something along the lines of transitivity.
Deontology violates the principle “Two wrongs don’t make a right” and this bothers me.
I don’t understand your point here. Deontology can implement all sorts of “two wrongs make a right” rules. It also seems strange to see deontology criticised for violating what appears to be more or less a deontological principle itself.
To be honest it seems like Manfred suggested a quite reasonable way to evaluate deontology:
Damn right. Deontology makes bad stuff happen. Don’t do it!
I think you misunderstand what I mean by “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. It’s not a moral rule, it’s a logical (perhaps meta-moral?) rule. It says that if an action is wrong, and another action is wrong, then doing the first action, then the second, in rapid succession is wrong.
With enough logical rules like that, you can prove the existence of a preference order, thus deriving consequentialism.
This is roughly my perspective, of course, I don’t think this argument would convince many deontologists.
This is another way of explaining why some of my posts in this thread are downvoted.
Of course not. (I don’t find it all that useful to try to convince people to not have objectionable preferences of any kind. It does not tend to work.)
Because you are arguing with deontologists? That was approximately my conclusion.
Because I am doing so poorly.