In the text entitled Contemporary Deontology by Ann Davis, the author goes through the basic tenements of deontology by describing its characteristics and constraints. In essence, Davis defines deontology as the sincere and rational avoidance of wrongdoing that ultimately results in less wrongdoing (Davis, 216). An example would be not murdering someone based on the rational argument that murdering is wrong. No matter what the consequences, murdering is always wrong. Within this, there are constraints that guide the deontologist in judgment that are negatively formatted, narrowly framed and narrowly directed (Davis, 208). Meaning, a guideline for the deontologists would be "don't steal" or "don't kill".
Of course, this way of thinking and tight constraints implies a high moral character. That is to say, it would be considered good for a person never to lie for any circumstance, or commit murder. Yet, this application in life shows that this way of thinking can also be considered morally questionable. For example, people who harbored Jews in Nazi occupied Europe. Surely they would have to lie in order to keep other human beings alive in their homes, yet according to the deontologist they are doing wrong? It seems absurd. Davis writes "(Deontologists) are not as responsible for the foreseen consequences of (their) actions" (Davis, 209). Meaning, the deontologist would say that the person who tells the Nazis that they are harboring Jews is better than the liar who says he is not due to the fact that he’s telling the truth. They would say that the result has nothing to do with the consequences of his actions, which is completely ridiculous in application.
On the other hand, however, it brings up the interesting question of weighing the life of another human against another. That is to say, if one is to reject the deontological position, it assumes that in the case of murder, there are certain circumstances where it is permissible. Davis discusses this problem by stating that even if the person may be deserving of death, the deontologist still does not have the right to do him harm (Davis, 207). In essence, unless the deontological rational is accepted, it is impossible to say that murder is wrong absolutely. According to this logic, it would seem that a non-deontological stance would be susceptible to a slippery slope in which almost any murder can be excused. For example, if we could choose to kill a dictator that plans on committing genocide on his people, surely a rational person would sacrifice an evil man to save innocent lives. But consider another example; a robber kills a police officer in a heist because the police officer was shooting at him. Unless the robber is a deontologist, he could say that his murder was permissible because it was self defense, even though we as observers would see it as murder.
Even though Deontology aims at the termination of wrongdoing, the only way it “works” is if the entire world were a strict deontologist, which is completely inconceivable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I have to agree with your argument. Deontology seems to on work on paper, but not in practice. Just like you said, deontology would only work if the entire world lived by it. In theory, if the entire world lived by the rules of deontology, nothing bad should technically happen. With your Nazi example, if everyone were deontologists, the people harboring Jews would not need to lie because even if the Nazis found the Jews, they would not murder or abuse them. It seems that deontology sits there with communism as one of those ideas that sound great, but are realistically impossible.
I found both your blog-post and Nancy Davis’s essay “Contemporary Deontology” to be very interesting and thought-provoking analyses of the structure of deontological philosophy. The argument over whether or not deontology is a valid system of morality and ethics is fascinating to discuss and is one that has no absolute, correct answer; however, I would have to agree with your assertion that deontology appears to be a faulty and impractical ethical theory. I believe that the failure of deontology to account for certain exceptions to constraints and obligations such as “do not lie” or “do not murder” makes it an imperfect and unreasonable ethical system. Your example of the person attempting to conceal the whereabouts of Jewish people to Nazi soldiers is a good example of an exception to a deontological rule. Based on this example and other exceptions, I don’t believe anyone can honestly say that lying to another person is wrong or unethical 100% of the time. In this manner, deontology is too strict and severe a system of ethical thought. Ultimately, I believe that the standard of morality set by Kant and other deontologists is unlikely to be achieved by anyone and is far too idyllic.
I agree with this assumption that it is impossible for deontology to exist as a universal rule. As the latest blog written by James talks about how there is no such thing as universal morals and we are actually a product of our environment. Therefor relating to your comment about the Nazis, it is because of the environment that they were raised and taught in that they acted like they did. The moral code of a Nazi was different from that of an ordinary citizen. It is because of this that deontology can only exist in environments in which it is taught. It is not something which simply comes natural to human beings. Also referring to the communist referrence that is something in which the environment was present much like the Nazi in which it was taught and enforced by the government. I don't think you can argue that it is much like deontology because deontology does exist in environments where it is taught. Communism is taught and then enforced which as weve seen in the past (Soviet Russia) doesnt seem to work.
I agree with both the blog post and the preceding comments that the deontological perspective would not be rational in our society. I would like to shift gears a bit and focus on the example provided in the blog post:
"If we could choose to kill a dictator that plans on committing genocide on his people, surely a rational person would sacrifice an evil man to save innocent lives."
In class we had mentioned the example from The Dark Knight (the two boats of people must choose to kill either the criminals or the civilians) as well as other "what if" scenarios that pose the option of killing someone evil to save innocent people. It seems that the majority has no problem accepting that it is acceptable to kill someone evil if the result leads to the preservation of innocent life.
I have a hard time agreeing with that. I believe that when it comes to murdering human life, the deontologist's perspective is what we should universally abide by. Even if someone is ruthlessly killing innocent people, that does not mean that the standard rules of society take a time out so that we can exterminate the evil-doer. Self defense is of course a different example. If someone is directly assaulting me then it is my right to defend myself, and in that case it would make sense that a police man would kill a criminal firing at him. However, I cannot justify the premeditated act of murder in any case.
People often proclaim that given the chance, they would kill baby Hitler. I wonder how many rational people would stand in front of a baby and actually carry the murder out.
Dan, thank you for your comment. However, I have to have object to one of your statements.
"People often proclaim that given the chance, they would kill baby Hitler. I wonder how many rational people would stand in front of a baby and actually carry the murder out."
While that may be true, that a rational person may not have the will to kill an innocent child, think of the long term implications of killing a baby Hitler. Consider that you are standing at Dachau and the trains have just arrived. One by one you see people file out to the gas chambers, literally being a witness to thousands of murders of innocents. Now, wouldn't a rational person say "who is responsible for this?" or better yet, "what could I have done / can I do to stop this?". After knowing full well the consequences of not killing a baby Hitler, how could a rational person not do so? That is where deontology fails as a moral system.
I agree with what Courtenay said: deontology is like communism, in the sense that it is perfect in its description but impractical in apllication. Though I might be wrong in saying so, I can't see how a rational person can argue that murdering a baby Hitler, with full knowledge of what he was planning on doing, can be considered an immoral decision.
Well done. I appreciate your interpretation of deontology and your recognition of its anti-pragmatism. Your Nazi example provides an excellent demonstration of how deontology, though theoretically attractive, would never be fully realized in a society that is not completely homogenous. However, I wish you would provide more analysis of the various situations where deontology might work and where it would not. This would make your argument, though already cogent, more well rounded and thereby convincing. Keep up the good work.
As almost everyone else has said deontology seems to be perfect on paper but in practice is impracticle. However, Grant deontology may be applicable in a situation such as the Ireland France soccer game a few months ago in which Thierry Henri used the advantage of a handball to put France up and advance them to the World Cup. He came out a few days later and apologized and admitted he had touched the ball with his hand. I realize this is not the best example at all.
I agree with you and also find that deontology is a subject that doesn't make very much intuitive sense when brought up by itself without other factors such as the rationality of humans. In a way, I feel that rationality, rather than working with, works against deontology. Due to the fact that all humans have rationality to some degree, Davis' view of having less wrongdoing is not possible. As we previously discussed in class, rationality hinders our abiility to strive for happiness. In your example regarding the Nazis, it's possible that it was the Nazis' rationality which led to them believing that what they did to the Jews was correct even though it involved killing. Likewise, people who harbored Jews were rational in understanding that lying would save a life. If the humans didn't have a mind of their own to choose between one's life and telling the truth, then Deontology would most certainly reduce wrongdoing.
Post a Comment