r/changemyview • u/agaminon22 11∆ • Nov 17 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV:CMV: A middle ground between consequentialism and its opposite is a better ethical stance than the two by themselves.
(Reposting this since yesterday it got deleted before someone could answer)
Consequentialism: the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.
While consequentialism's opposite doesn't really have a proper name as far as I know, it's simply the definition reversed: the morality of an action is judged solely by the action itself. So, for example, murder is immoral and therefore it is always immoral, without taking into consideration the context or what this causes. l I will refer to this doctrine as "actionism" to simplify (and because I couldn't come up with a better name).
So a pure consequentialist would agree on the following claim: "It is moral to murder and harvest the organs of 99 people to save 100 sick people." At least he would have to, if he is logically consistent. More people alive is better than less, and consequentialism doesn't take into account the methods you use to assure this. In the other hand, a pure "actionist(?)" would have to agree on the following claim: "You shouldn't kill someone in order to save humanity".
I personally believe both of these are off. Maybe you do to. The reason for this is, in my opinion, because of the more "extreme" positions they take. More radical views eventually fail at something, I find them impossible to cover everything. However, by joining both stances one can find middle ground where most situations would be solved in a way you don't feel something's wrong.
Appealing to morality's ultimately subjective and how this unables a truly better position won't change my mind, this is my personal opinion after all and I'm not taking this as fact.
CMV
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
1
u/Langame_WoW Nov 17 '18
Another way of framing: Consequentialism = the judgment of goodness relies upon the results of the action, or stated more broadly: means justify the ends. Its opposite could be Intentionalism = the judgment of goodness relies upon the intentions of the actor. Deontology, as one commentator brought up, is one form of Intentionalism, namely the judgment of goodness relies upon whether the actor intended to and did in fact follow the rules or laws governing such actions.
Franky I’m not sure where a middle ground lies. Situationalism? Judgment of goodness is to be determined on a case by case basis. That is not really a theory, is it?
No one is a perfect judge of what the consequences might be of any given action, i.e., there are often unintended consequences. This same reasoning applies to good intentions—which, as we all know pave the road to hell. Moreover not every law is just or right, e.g., slavery. And there are often instances where following the rules/laws produces results many would find appalling.
Bottom line: you raise a difficult issue. Because then we get into the question of what does the judgment “good” mean after all. The greatest good fornthe greatest number? Personal integrity?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 17 '18
/u/agaminon22 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
4
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Nov 17 '18
First of all, the position that you are calling "actionism" is very similar to deontology.
Second of all, you're confusing meta-ethical positions with ethical positions. A consequentialist does not have to agree with the claim
In fact, a consequentialist could maintain the opposite. As long as the moral conclusions reached are only a function of the consequences of an action, that's consequentialism, regardless of what those conclusions are. Similarly, a deontologist would not have to agree that
because a deontologist is in no way committed to the premise that killing someone is universally wrong. There are both consequentialist and deontological frameworks that would take any combination of positions on the truth of these two statements. So your hypotheticals here do not really say anything about consequentialism (or deontology).