Deontology And Consequentialism Essay
Consequentialism is frequently criticized on a number of grounds.
Two of these are particularly apt for revealing the temptations motivating the alternative approach to deontic ethics that is deontology.
The two criticisms pertinent here are that consequentialism is, on the one hand, overly demanding, and, on the other hand, that it is not demanding enough.
The criticism regarding extreme demandingness runs like this: for consequentialists, there is no realm of moral permissions, no realm of going beyond one's moral duty, no realm of moral indifference.
All acts are seemingly either required or forbidden.
There also seems to be no space for the consequentialist in which to show partiality to one's own projects or to one's family, friends, and countrymen, leading some critics of consequentialism to deem it a profoundly alienating and perhaps self-effacing moral theory. …show more content…
As with the satisficing move, it is unclear how a consistent consequentialist can motivate this restriction on all out optimization of the Good.
Another idea popular with consequentialists is to move from consequentialism as a theory that directly assesses acts to consequentialism as a theory that directly assesses rules-or character trait inculcation-and assesses acts only indirectly by reference to such rules Its proponents contend that indirect consequentialism can avoid the criticisms of direct consequentialism because it will not legitimate egregious violations of ordinary moral standards-e.g., the killing of the innocent to bring about some better state of affairs-nor will it be overly demanding and thus alienating each of us from our own projects.
The relevance here of these defensive maneuvers by consequentialists is their common attempt to mimic the intuitively plausible aspects of a non-consequentialist, deontological approach to
Two of these are particularly apt for revealing the temptations motivating the alternative approach to deontic ethics that is deontology.
The two criticisms pertinent here are that consequentialism is, on the one hand, overly demanding, and, on the other hand, that it is not demanding enough.
The criticism regarding extreme demandingness runs like this: for consequentialists, there is no realm of moral permissions, no realm of going beyond one's moral duty, no realm of moral indifference.
All acts are seemingly either required or forbidden.
There also seems to be no space for the consequentialist in which to show partiality to one's own projects or to one's family, friends, and countrymen, leading some critics of consequentialism to deem it a profoundly alienating and perhaps self-effacing moral theory. …show more content…
As with the satisficing move, it is unclear how a consistent consequentialist can motivate this restriction on all out optimization of the Good.
Another idea popular with consequentialists is to move from consequentialism as a theory that directly assesses acts to consequentialism as a theory that directly assesses rules-or character trait inculcation-and assesses acts only indirectly by reference to such rules Its proponents contend that indirect consequentialism can avoid the criticisms of direct consequentialism because it will not legitimate egregious violations of ordinary moral standards-e.g., the killing of the innocent to bring about some better state of affairs-nor will it be overly demanding and thus alienating each of us from our own projects.
The relevance here of these defensive maneuvers by consequentialists is their common attempt to mimic the intuitively plausible aspects of a non-consequentialist, deontological approach to