Who do you agree with?

Ok I really should be writing this philosophy paper right now but while I was writing it I got curious as to what other people thought about this so I thought I would ask on here.

So pretty much my question is in terms of morality which philosophical view point do you agree with; Utilitarianism or Kantian deontology? I'm mostly focusing on these two because they pretty much are the 2 largest moral theories and are very opposite of each other.

So crash course if you don't know what each are.

Utilitarianism:

Pretty much the idea that what is morally right will be the decision that will benefit the greater amount of people.

Kantian Deontology:

This is the idea that you should only do an act if it can become a universal law. So pretty much it's like imagining that if everyone else started doing what I'm doing then it would be ok.

Hopefully that makes sense?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Unl8n Swallow on October 15, 2009 at 4:29am: Hehe, the paper is probably already due by now, huh?

This kind of thing is hard to think about. And personaly I love the intellectual act of exploring every facet of a topic to find all the different places to stand and where I stand, but I never do that unless the result will have the ability to affect something in real life.

If your question was "Wouldn't life be better if we got really good at racism again?" I think you'd get a bunch of replies (and I came up with that seven seconds ago but wow that would be an awesome question for a philosophy class to explore). "Utilitariamism vs. Kantian Deontology" is more in the camp of "we spent all that time on it, now what can we do with it?"

How did the paper turn out?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by LZ aka Eric (ningmaster) on October 16, 2009 at 4:39pm: I used to be a large supporter of Deontology but in the end I feel it's just emotivism with more rules. Personally if I must I'd choose logical positivism as my preferred secular moral belief system.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by BC on October 24, 2009 at 2:03pm: I disagree.

Kidding. Utilitarianism makes more sense to me. At my speech and Debate meet, I got pwned twice by this core value. Fuck smart people...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by danman on October 25, 2009 at 6:26am: Utilitarianism is the only one that makes sense. If you invent a rule which is perfectly valid in deontology that says always do whatever it takes to make most people happy, then deontologism collapses into utilitarianism in a puff of logic.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brittaneee on October 25, 2009 at 5:16pm: Is there ever such a rule that will always make the greater good happy though? Because if there is then your statements right but I don't really think that that ever happens.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by danman on October 25, 2009 at 5:26pm: In any situation you can either clearly see that there is some path that according to what you know, will maximise the common good (obviously conflicts may arise about which path is the best but the important thing is that it makes a difference) . If that is not true , then it is not a moral decision.

BTW i think i am answering your question but please could you rephrase it because i am not sure whether i interpreted it right

Also to say, i personally think that moral theory is something to use when you are a third party ie you are not especially involved in what is happening. That is one of the things utilitarianism actually acknowledges which is another thing i like about it; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brittaneee on October 25, 2009 at 5:40pm: I was just asking is there ever a rule that in deontology that you can always follow that will benefit the greater good (thus making it Utilitarianism)? ( Hopefully that clears it up .. my fault first time... I'm tired so what makes sense in my head ... just doesn't make sense); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by danman on October 25, 2009 at 6:18pm: I just stated it - do whatever it takes to maximize happiness of most. It passes both Kant's tests - it is consistent and it would be nice to live in such a world; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brittaneee on October 25, 2009 at 6:32pm: I think you misunderstand Kant. Kant isn't looking at what will always lead to the most happiness/ benefit for the most amount of people. He's looking for the moral laws that must always be applied no matter what. So for example lying. Even if lying will bring the most happiness to the most people you can't do it because if everyone started lying without second thought you wouldn't be able to trust anyone. So what your saying doesn't make any sense.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by danman on October 25, 2009 at 6:53pm: Yes and my rule can always sucessfully be applied no matter what, Imagine that everyone started lying only in the case it was in the best interest ol most people (a fragment) then it would not be selfcontradictory (the condition ) since at any statement it would either be true or it would be in best interest of most people to believe it (and therefore taking my rule into account you should),
I am not saying that it is a classical type of rule, just that it agrees with the system but makes it collapse into utilitarianism, which nicely invalidates it.

Otherwise, i agree with Ayn Rand that Kant was the kind of person who gives moral theories a bad name,; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brittaneee on October 25, 2009 at 8:52pm: Ok then following your logic what would you use to determine is the best for the greater amount. What I may think will benefit the most amount of people might now be what you will think will benefit the greater amount of people.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by danman on October 26, 2009 at 2:33am: And? Anything one does is based on his predictions - you cannot be sure of almost anything (except for mathematics).