Duties and consequences

My focus in this article will be ethics, also called moral philosophy. We can roughly split ethics in two categories, and those will be descriptive ethics and normative ethics. The difference between the terms 'normative' and 'descriptive' is interesting in its own right, but that will have to wait for later.

Descriptive ethics is more observational than hard-thinking, and the aim is to collect actual moral values from groups and cultures. Normative ethics, on the other hand, is more appealing to us humans, because it is to judge what is right or wrong, and certainly it must be based on some principle, of which we must demand some degree of consistency. The aim is to produce some ethical direction with principles to make moral judgement, and to make all the other philosophers agree that this particular direction is the ultimate one. Nobody has so far accomplished this mission to create complete worldwide ethical consensus, to make all human beings forever live in peace and harmony. Frankly, anno 2008 we suck big-time at normative ethics, and war, abuse and hunger is as always torturing the majority of our planet.

The two main competitors in the branch of normative ethics battle a hard struggle. One part fronts a view where the important principle of determining moral value is consequences. If the action of discussion is likely to bring the best consequences of all the action-alternatives possible, then the action is a moral good one - otherwise, the action is morally wrong. Utilitarianism, which is the name of this direction, is strict in judging the moral values of actions like this. If a situation offers 10 different actions and 5 of them are likely to bring good consequences of different degree, it isn't morally sound to pick a relaxing alternative with good consequences, you have to pick the single one alternative that is likely to bring most worldwide quality-consequences, to earn moral respect from the utilitarians. The morally right choice may well include killing and lying, but seldom or never raping. Torturing - well - maybe.

The other part isn't that interested in consequences. Deontology, which is the name of this direction, is obsessed with duties. Where the utilitarians have to judge an action for moral value in light of the situation, the deontologists know which actions are right and which are wrong before the situation occurs. A deontological direction forms a set of absolute rules of orders and prohibitions, kind of like a state's judicial laws. You remember the rule we learned as kids; act toward others the way you yourself wants to be treated? Typically, deontologists front absolute prohibition against murder, including abortion, but excluding slaughtering of animals and mother earth. Another favourite among deontologists are moral prohibition against lying, even the small white ones. It is morally wrong to lie, even if that's what it takes to get you out of the Royal Army.

It seems like deontology and utilitarianism will never smoke peace-pipe, but they should. I have a strong feeling that they agree more than one should think. They agree in their common aim, which is to help human race optimize its happiness. The deontologists design their duty-rules because they in some degree believe that people need clear and absolute rules, while utilitarians focus on action in particular situations, because they believe that the same action can be morally good and bad in different situations, and see this as an important aspect in optimizing human happiness. If either of the ethical clans should convince the other, the winner would either way struggle big-time applying their ethics successfully on planet earth.