Utilitarianism is a form of deontology.

It is often said that deontology is "disguised utilitarianism." 

In fact, the opposite is true.

Utilitarianism is a form of deontology. 

In metaethics, a deontological system is one that is based on fundamental, axiomatic principles of duty, and which derive all of their moral rules from this set of axiomatic principles (or, in some cases this one principle).

A utilitarian moral framework is one that is based on a single, axiomatic principle.  The principles vary from one utilitarian system to another, but they usually take the form of something that can be restated like this:

"Act in such a way that maximizes the total pleasure for the greatest number of people,"

or 

"Act in such a way that minimizes the total suffering for the greatest number of people,"

or

"Act in such a way that fulfills the desires of the greatest number of people,"

or something along these lines.  Among the various possible ethical systems, utilitarian systems are some of the most strictly deontological, since every other precept can be derived from one of these types of fundamental axioms, and furthermore, these axioms are completely a priori.  There is no evidence - and no possible evidence - that could persuade a rational person that "Act in such a way that maximizes the total pleasure for the greatest number of people" is "true" - whatever that could mean.

Now, you might respond that if utilitarianism is deontological, then every moral system is deontological.  

I'm not sure that that's true.  

But it could be.  Let's take this possibility seriously.  Consider, for instance, the "command" theory of ethics.  Could it be stated in the form of a deontology?  What would be its fundamental axiom?  Perhaps:

"Act in such a way that will be pleasing to the omniscient God."  

I suppose one might argue that you can "derive" all of the principles of the command theory of ethics from this fundamental principle.  I think this might be stretching the definition of the word "derive".  It seems pretty dubious that one could rationally derive moral laws from this axiomatic principle: I cannot hope to know what will be pleasing to an omniscient God, since I, with my meager, finite mind, am not, in fact, omniscient.  So we're back to square one.  One might as well base a system on "...what will be pleasing to the Flarnigloon," without having any idea what a Flarnigloon might be.  Any assumption that one's actions will be pleasing to an omniscient being seem, on reflection, to be nothing but vain and foolish pride.  It might be added that this way of attempting to organizing command theory into a system of axioms and derived theorems might well be considered heretical from the standpoint of certain theologies, but that is a topic for another time.  (If anyone knows of any other way of organizing command theory into an axiom and a set of derived theorems, let me know.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... )  But it hard
Read more

Why Ayn Rand was Wrong

  It is a pet theory of mine that the "greatness" or "importance" of a philosopher is mostly determined by that philosopher's subsequent degree of influence on a government leader.  Would we still talk about Socrates, if his student Critias had not taken over Athens as the leader of the Dictatorship of the Thirty?  Would we talk about Aristotle, had he not tutored Alexander, who later became Alexander the Great and took over a vast part of the ancient world?  Would we remember Rousseau, had not Robespierre declared him "divine"?  Or Locke and Montesquieu, had not the founders of the United States revered them?  The esteem given to the philosophy by professional professors within the academy matters less, and its internal coherence, or insight, or truth matters less still.  By this measure, Ayn Rand is, unfortunately, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.   Even though she is barely noticed by philosophy departments, Ayn Rand is massively
Read more

The American Ontology

Image
I subscribe to the American Ontology, which can be stated as follows: An entity can be said to exist, if and only if, and to the extent that, it is, or pertains to, a celebrity. Places, material objects, and animals exist to the extent that they are the places, material objects, and animals of celebrities.  Events don’t happen unless they happen to celebrities.  Entire regions of the world don’t exist, because they don’t contain celebrities.  The American Ontology can be seen as a logical consequence of Berkeley’s famous esse est percipi : to be is to be seen.  And therefore, the more seen something is, the more it is .  Everyone else can be dismantled, and used for spare parts. In turn, the American Ontology has its own logical consequences: celebrities only exist because of their relation to other celebrities.  For instance: Jordyn Woods is famous (i.e. existent) because she was living with Kylie Jenner.  Kylie Jenner is famous because she is the sister of Kendall Jenner. 
Read more