Deontology VS. Consequentialism

Deontology is a system of ethics formed upon the ideals that judge the merit or demerit of a person's actions, regardless of consequences.

Consequentialism is the opposite, and look not toward the actions, but what results from it.

While I usually believe in taking a balance of such things in to consideration, I also tend to lean more towards deontology. I focus on the rights and wrongs of actions, not as much on the consequences that result from the actions.

These systems of ethics do not mean only what I just said, but they are more than just that. They are ways of thinking, and tell you more about a person. When working with other RLSH, it's good to know where their motives are.

Do they want to do what they do out of pure reason of wanting to do it, regardless of what happens from it? Or are they looking to make a change, and will purely doing the actions themselves make them feel satisfied, or is it results which satisfy them the most?

Situations can vary, depending on what happened on what the motivations were, but what doesn't change is who you are and how your minds work and what your motivations are. We can improve ourselves, but over time we know who we are.

Anyway, please vote in this poll and let us know what you voted, and if you'd also like to explain your thoughts here, feel more than welcome to.

If you can't pick, read more about it, and see which one you're more likely to lean towards.

I don't know if I can even touch this one lol fro me it is a balance between both in essence. as with balance in most things it tends to sway from one end to the other, I just remember that I want a balance and that usually keeps things in perspective for me, I believe their is just a right and wrong way to go about things but at the same time in some rare cases the ends can justify the means, what I mean by that is that there is a right time to condemn an action and there is also a time to understand an action what's important is what you do with that understanding.

Yes, and each situation is different so it's hard to say what you will or won't do for every situation. But, understanding these philosophies can help you know your own self, how you think, what your motivations are.

And helps your friends and people you work with understand you better, as well.

I voted the other way,cuz consequences develop moral values,as well as respect for other people feelings or property ect.

I could be wrong, but the way I've always interpreted it, was that ethics was just the way of thinking that held the morals. And morals are just the substance of something more specific of what is right or wrong.

Ethics are the reasoning behind the morals. Like, good morals would make you realize that stealing is wrong. Deontological Ethics would have you realize that because the act of stealing itself is wrong. Consequentialist Ethics would have you realize that stealing is wrong because of the negative consequences it brings.

The way I visualize it, is that ethics is the cup, but morals is the tea or hot cocoa or coffee inside the cup.

I voted consequentialism. I think that only the result counts.

Andyman,

The results are very important, but, the two must go together carefully. Too much of one without the other can create a sense of inbalance.

If you have the greatest outcome in the world, through a negative action, sure there's that positive outcome, but the fact that it may have taken a negative action to do that also shouldn't be ignored.

Of course! that I wanted to say, it is that sometimes the result counts more than the way of reaching that point.

Ah. It can at times. The thing about ethics is that they are nothing without the supplementation of morals.

Like, if you're going for a long drive to a particular restaurant, and you love that restaurant so much, and you're going for a long drive for an hour to get there, you won't be able to enjoy the drive to get there, if your only focus is on enjoying the time you spend at the restaurant, eating the food. And this isn't exactly the same exact situation, BUT, similar thought process to take in to consideration.

ok,I lied. I just closed my eyes & picked one. lol j/k!!!

there's two sides to this depending on how the factors are being applied? In general they are physically opposite. But if you use them towards making a presumption,you've changed their relationship & they are the same, under 1 possible principal which is thought. so I'm wondering how these 2 are being put into action?

These are only the ethics, not the morals.

It depends on the situations. Some situations can seem more towards justifying whether the actions are more important than the consequences, or whether the consequences are more important than the actions.

Morals depend more on the situations. But as for the ethics, those are just the thought processes that help mold your moral.s

He's basically just saying that you shouldn't blow up New York City to save the world.

I agree. I mean, yeah, you just saved the world. But, you just killed everyone in NYC in the process.

So the lesser EVIL is still EVIL,right?

Red Vision,

Good question. The Yin/Yang Theory states that in all good there is evil, and in all evil there is good.

BUT, in my opinion, that also doesn't mean that people can or should just do evil things and then try to justify them with the good things. A person can control their actions, and even tilt a consequence to lean in a certain direction but they can't always 100% control the consequences. Be it immediate, or indirect - which if you take in to consideration the Butterfly Effect, AKA The Ripple Effect, it does, and smaller actions always lead to more things in that direction in the long run.

If walking in a very long field, in a straight line back and forth a few times, starting and ending at the same points each time, if during one of those walks, you make the slightest turn, the farther you walk, the farther your end point will be if you keep going straight, after making that slightest turn.

RED VISION wrote:

So the lesser EVIL is still EVIL,right?

Yep. You also have to realize that inaction to help is just the same as hurting them yourself. Inaction *is* action, because you made a choice to not act.

I didnt read all the replies. But I will just answer anyways.

I think neither. Because its not the results or the action.... its the intention. For example... if I am shooting a gun for hunting purposes, intentionally aiming at a single deer, and I accidentally shoot the wrong animal(or too many) resulting in poaching, I dont think I should be punished for that. The problem with running things based on intention though, is people not being truthful about their intentions. So although I think intention is the most important thing, and what punishment should be based on, I dont think its a practical reason.

There for we are forced to use Deontology.

Consequential-ism wouldnt work as you would get situations like: A murderer comes in to a person's home and intends on killing the owner. At the same time a burglar tried to come in the same house to steal. The home owner first encounters the burglar and is fighting him. The murderer comes in and kills the burglar, saving the home owner. By this time the cops come break down the door and arest the murderer.... but wait... he saved this guys life. we have to let him go now regardless of his intentions.... then later he comes back and kills the home owner anyways.(what an unlucky guy eh?)

So yeah, we have to go with Deontology.

ShowStopper wrote:

He's basically just saying that you shouldn't blow up New York City to save the world.

I agree. I mean, yeah, you just saved the world. But, you just killed everyone in NYC in the process.

Ah the whole do you save one baby, or 10 strangers from a burning building, deal.