Even though I just finished philosophy last semester, I’m still confused as to what they both mean. If utilitarian refers to “maximizing happiness,” then what does deontology mean?
In: Other
**Deontology**: We get a set of rules from somewhere. Eg, the Bible, or try to derive them through logic, like Kant tried. Being moral is then obeying the rules. The consequences of obeying the rules are completely irrelevant.
Eg, Kant figured that lying is immoral. As per deontology, lying is immoral, period, regardless of circumstances. Kant himself said that if the Nazis show up looking for Jews in your basement, it’s immoral to lie to them. (**edit** the question Kant answered was whether it was okay to lie to a murderer looking for a victim. Actual Nazis weren’t around at the time as /u/allthejokesareblue says)
A special note on Kant: Some people misunderstand his view as “imagine the consequences if everyone did X”. Kant didn’t care about consequences, he was all about logic. His idea of why lying was wrong wasn’t “It would suck if everybody lied all the time”, but “If everyone lied, nobody would trust anybody, and all truths would be assumed to be lies, and even the whole point of lying would be destroyed”. His whole point is that if some things were done universally we’d render them logically incoherent in one way or another.
**Consequentialism**: We look at the consequences of actions. We figure out what kind of consequences we want to see in the world. Being moral is bringing about the best consequences.
In most versions there are no hard rules. Lying can be either good or bad, depending on what you achieve by lying. There are many off-shoots of consequentialism: utilitarianism, rule consequentialism, ethical egoism, the list is a long one.
Latest Answers