Let A be a person with a consequentialist ethics and B with a deontological ethics.
Is it possible that A and B agree on the structure of the State?
If so, how would they reach an agreement?
I think J. S. Mill suggested somewhere that his utilitarianism was not necessarily antithetical to Kant's ethics. That makes sense because following a certain moral rule could, all things considered and in the long run, result in the greatest good of the greatest number. That is the idea behind so-called "rule-utilitarianism". So B would have to convince A that following B's deontological moral principle has the best overall consequences, or A would have to convince B that the outcome of A's utilitarian calculation gives the same result as following a deontological moral principle that B accepts.
Alfredo Freire Suggestion: One way is to challenge the two (A and B) to reflect if they could be parts of the same whole. Aristotle and Plato would say that good ethical action starts with a deontological intent: "The wish/want to do what is good". To have an intention of good is never a guarantee for actual good consequences. Anyone who has lived a life knows this. The consequentialist knows this. If A and B reflect together they might be able to see the interconnectedness between the ethics of intent and the ethics of consequences. Aristotle and Plato would in addition say that 1. Your good intentions matter. They are an important starting point. 2. Use your head, your rationality. Remember that the head is cold and needs help form the heart. 3. Use your heart to temper your head. 4. real life is often different than what is possible to grasp with your head and heart. Calibrate your head and heart with real life. 5. Consequences matter. You might have had the best intentions, used your rationality, your experience and knowledge, listen to your heart and taken into account real life and still the consequences of your actions might go bad. 6. Reflect over the consequences. good or bad, and use them to become wiser in future instances. This experience and these reflections can fine tune your intention in the future. A and B might understand, through this process, that they are actually parts of the same whole. Aristotle and Plato would say this is a way to develop practical wisdom (phronesis).
I think J. S. Mill suggested somewhere that his utilitarianism was not necessarily antithetical to Kant's ethics. That makes sense because following a certain moral rule could, all things considered and in the long run, result in the greatest good of the greatest number. That is the idea behind so-called "rule-utilitarianism". So B would have to convince A that following B's deontological moral principle has the best overall consequences, or A would have to convince B that the outcome of A's utilitarian calculation gives the same result as following a deontological moral principle that B accepts.
Sure. Rather than repeating the comments of the previous respondents consider ... both U.S. Ethicists who separately might exposure consequentialist and deontology ethical postures will similarly embrace the general democratic nature of the United States government. They might disagree on specific policies, of course, but accept as given the broad Constitutional structure is appropriate and presumably adequate.
Thanks for your answer Karl Pfeifer , this is the kind of discussion I would hope for. Do you suggest some reading regarding this topic?
Tom Koch , your addition is quite interesting and it was precisely the example I had in mind. As I read about these kinds of ethics I sometimes think people are arguing about the fundamental basis of ethic that are not politically compatible. But, even without realizing, people have very different ethical backgrounds and it seems possible that they have agreed on a constitution.
A question: is it important to bring about these kinds of differences in political discussions? Or should we keep the focus on the constitutional agreement?
Thanks Kjartan Skogly Kversøy for your answer. It is indeed interesting to consider the question under the Plato/Aristotle framework.
My answer to the question would be that, yes, it's important to bring these distinctions into the discussion since they inform our perspectives and the resulting choices. And, if ethical concerns are made clear often one can find a common ground. Those who insist on economics as a critical determinant might be swayed when told the long-term efficiencies despite short-term cost of health related measures.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics