Seems to me that even supposedly deontologic arguments usually have some (not always explicit) explanation, such as ”...because God wants that” or ”...because otherwise people will not like you” or maybe even ”...because the famous philosopher Kant would disagree with you”.
I’m told that these explanations fall under the realm of meta-ethics. As far as I (not being a deontologist) can tell, all deontological ethical systems rely on assuming some basic maxim—such as “because God said so”, or “follow that rule one would wish to be universal law”.
I don’t see how deontology would work without that maxim.
Assuming my model of deontologists is correct, then their beliefs are like “Don’t torture people, no matter what the benefits of doing so are, because God does not want you to torture people!” Then all it needs is a charismatic priest who explains that, for some clever theological reasons, God actually does not mind you torturing this specific person in this specific situation.
For a historical example of exactly this, see the Spanish Inquisition. (They did torture people, and I did once come across some clever theological reasons for it, in which it is actually quite difficult to find the flaw).
That there is a basic maxim doesn’t mean there isn’t a) an explanation of why that maxim is of overriding importance and b)an explanation of how that maxim leads to particular actions.
That there is a basic maxim doesn’t mean there isn’t a) an explanation of why that maxim is of overriding importance and b)an explanation of how that maxim leads to particular actions
Presumably meaning that it isn’t obvious how you get to (a) and (b). Phils. are very aware that you need to get to (a) and (b) and have argued elaborately (see Kant) towards them. (Has anyone here read so much as one wiki or SEP page on the subject?)
Quite. In order to have a good deontological basis of ethics, both (a) and (b) are necessary; and I would expect to find both. These build on and enhance the maxim on which they are based; indeed, these would seem, to me, to be the two things that change a simple maxim into a full deontological basis for ethics.
For a historical example of exactly this, see the Spanish Inquisition. (They did torture people, and I did once come across some clever theological reasons for it, in which it is actually quite difficult to find the flaw).
Was it by any chance “If we don’t torture these people they’ll go to hell, which is worse than torture”?
I’m told that these explanations fall under the realm of meta-ethics. As far as I (not being a deontologist) can tell, all deontological ethical systems rely on assuming some basic maxim—such as “because God said so”, or “follow that rule one would wish to be universal law”.
I don’t see how deontology would work without that maxim.
For a historical example of exactly this, see the Spanish Inquisition. (They did torture people, and I did once come across some clever theological reasons for it, in which it is actually quite difficult to find the flaw).
That there is a basic maxim doesn’t mean there isn’t a) an explanation of why that maxim is of overriding importance and b)an explanation of how that maxim leads to particular actions.
Presumably meaning that it isn’t obvious how you get to (a) and (b). Phils. are very aware that you need to get to (a) and (b) and have argued elaborately (see Kant) towards them. (Has anyone here read so much as one wiki or SEP page on the subject?)
Right. This thread is full of bizarrely strawmanish characterizations of deontology.
Quite. In order to have a good deontological basis of ethics, both (a) and (b) are necessary; and I would expect to find both. These build on and enhance the maxim on which they are based; indeed, these would seem, to me, to be the two things that change a simple maxim into a full deontological basis for ethics.
Was it by any chance “If we don’t torture these people they’ll go to hell, which is worse than torture”?
That’s a large part of it, but not all of it. I can’t quite remember the whole thing, but I can look it up in a day or two.