Using the example of theft. We have it as both permissible and impermissible. This can be applied to any act really given the situation. So doesn't that go against the idea that an act by nature is right or wrong?
When we think about the nature of the act, there are lots of things that we consider. It's not just a state of affairs that occurs in isolation. So from a deontological point of view, we might look at the agent's motives, whether the rights of any other people were violated, whether there was moral justification for the act, and so on. There are lots of flavours of deontological theories out there, but they all consider a wealth of things beyond just an isolated event.
Again using the example of stealing, if it were wrong by nature it would be wrong regardless of the situation.
This could be the case, but there's going to have to be a bit more to the story. A good ethical theory will tell us whether something is impermissible, but it should also offer a story as to why this is the case.
Put simply good acts don't justify themselves anymore than evil acts demonize themselves save in axiomatic fashion.
I think I see what you're getting at here, but the notion of an act conferring justification on itself is very strange. Now I think you're right to challenge whether we can ever genuinely have access to the nature of an act, but this doesn't stop us from making an assessment on a theoretical level. So if you want to show that neither theory has a leg to stand on, you'd need cases that demonstrate that both of them get a commensurable amount of things wrong. But if you were to use cases that are vague (thus bringing out the opacity of the nature of an act) you'd be charged with presenting cases that are just underdescribed. The challenge would come back to you to provide a compelling case with an adequate description that undermines one or the other of these theories.
Indeed it seems that any utilitarian theory must by nature slide into nature of the result moral systems and we're back in Kantian good-or-evil-for-it's-own-sake territory.
I can't quite tell what you're getting at here. It looks like it could be compelling, but I'm just not following.
Ignore everything you've ever learned about action and reaction and consequence and result and linear function of experience and then tell me why the results of an action shed any light on the morality of an action. Can't do it. Trust me. I've tried.
There's an important piece of the story missing here. Ethical theories are theories of right action, sure. But in order to get off the ground they need a theory of value to plug in. So a utilitarian says that the right act is the one that maximises utility. Why is this? Because there's a hedonistic value system supporting the claim.
If the mind was not guilty when the crime was committed (IE, the individual had no intent to commit the crime), then the individual is not guilty of commiting any crime.
A strong point, and one that sheds light on some of the intuitive appeal of deontological ethics. We care about the motives behind the act, not just the consequences.
Of course, consequentialism has its faults. If a cure for every disease could be found, but you had to kill one person to recieve it, should it be done? Deontology would say no; the commiting of even one "bad" act (killing) is never justified. On the other hand, consequentialists would say yes, as the collective good in the system is being raised by the removal of all disease. IN this regard, consequentialism can be used to justify the commiting of morally repulsive acts, so long as the ultimate ending is the raising of the collective good.
Excellent! These are exactly the kinds of cases I'm hoping to draw out. Good philosophy is about finding the right questions to ask, and the above quote leaves us with a lot of interesting questions. There are tons and tons of these kinds of cases out there, and I think they're one of the most valuable tools in assessing an ethical theory.
To really answer this question, a rather consequentialist approach has to be taken: We're deciding which system is the most good, most of the time. ^^
Hehe
I tried to be super careful with the question to avoid an outcome like this. So looking back to the opening post for this topic (p. 3) the question is a bit different. We're assessing which one is better based on how it sorts out different cases into the 4 categories I listed above. This is a completely formal analysis, although we can draw non-formal conclusions if an answer can be reached.
So let's keep thinking! Are there some real problem cases for either theory? Does one theory handle a certain area better than the other? Are there cases that neither theory can really get the right answer?
