Consequentialist or Deontological morality?

Morality

  • Dontological - an action is justified by the morality of the action itself

    Votes: 4 66.7%

  • Consequentialist - an action is justified by the consequences. IE the means justify the ends.

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • Total voters
    6
Threedee said:
My Catholic faith demands I pick dontological.
Click to expand...

Immanuel Kant argued that it was wrong to lie to a murderer who was asking where his next victim was, because of his dontological perspective which said that the action of lying was wrong no matter the consequences. I think any ideology if stretched to extreme can lead to some crazy results, like when Ghandi, using his nonviolent philosophy, said that the Jews should have offered their necks to the nazi butchers. Clearly, nonviolence holds no use against a foe that has no respect for your human dignity. And clearly we shouldn't tell a murderer where his next victim is just to avoid lying. But if we go to far in the violent philosophy all of us will end up killing each other. And if we go to far in the consequentialist philosophy we lose our souls.

All philosophies are approximations of true reason, and taking them to the extreme therefore produces results that are unreasonable, while in moderation said philosophy can be perfectly reasonable. So I think we need to balance consequentialist with dontological.
 
Last edited:
But in general I think it's best to ere on the side of dontological, in order to avoid some of the barabric things the consequentialism leads to.
 
Watermark said:
Immanuel Kant argued that it was wrong to lie to a murderer who was asking where his next victim was, because of his dontological perspective which said that the action of lying was wrong no matter the consequences. I think any ideology if stretched to extreme can lead to some crazy results, like when Ghandi, using his nonviolent philosophy, said that the Jews should have offered their necks to the nazi butchers. Clearly, nonviolence holds no use against a foe that has no respect for your human dignity. And clearly we shouldn't tell a murderer where his next victim is just to avoid lying. But if we go to far in the violent philosophy all of us will end up killing each other. And if we go to far in the consequentialist philosophy we lose our souls.

All philosophies are approximations of true reason, and taking them to the extreme therefore produces results that are unreasonable, while in moderation said philosophy can be perfectly reasonable. So I think we need to balance consequentialist with dontological.
Click to expand...
Where Kant goes wrong is that it is also immoral to tell the murderer the truth (we call it "leading into temptation"). Strict silence is the moral road. For example, one who holds a confidence is obligated not to divulge confidential information (lawyers, doctors, priests, etc.), but it would also be wrong to lie about it to people...
 
But threedee, you can't speak on this topic. You're an internationalist fascist fuckhead who wouldn't know morality if it came and queefed in your face.
 
Chances this thread exists so watermark can show off that he just learned two new words:

[ ] 20% - 50%
[ ] 51% - 70%
[x] 71% - 100%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top