Rational Ethics: Rational Oughts vs. Deontology

This video is a part of my ongoing series of videos on ethics.

I discuss the difference between a rational conception of ought statements and a deontological, or duty based, conception of them.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• virtue
• ethics
• consequentialism
• morality
• nihilism
• egoism
• eudaimonia
• compatibilism
• determinism
• objectivism
• is-ought
• problem
• deontology

[bhigr]

Psychological egoism. Happyness as ultimate goal. That doesn't contradict deontological ethics. If you think that your duties may be derived from your egoistic goals, only then do you contradict deontology. "A specific choice available to that person is efficient for satisfying the ultimate goal of happyness."

What if someones ultimate goal (happyness) is achieved by torturing someone (sadism), then you conclude that he "ought" to torture.... Rational or irrational? ;-)

[XOmniverse]

@bhigr I would deny that genuine happiness can be achieved through sadism. I would go even further to say that someone mentally sick to the point where, say, they gain joy from kidnapping people and torturing them is probably incapable of genuine happiness.

As far as duties, I claim no duties in my ethics. I say "You want to achieve happiness (not as a duty but as a matter of fact), and X Y and Z is the best means towards that end." Whether someone uses the advice is up to them.

[bhigr]

@XOmniverse Well some people are in fact sadists. They achieve happiness by cruelty to other people. This is a fact you cannot deny. So whose happiness counts more, the torturers happiness or the happiness of the tortured?

You "ethics" is simply egoism. Do what suits you best and makes you happy. Sounds good until desires collide.

One more remark. Kantian deontology is not based on authoritarianism. It is based on autonomy, which means self legislation.

[XOmniverse]

@bhigr "Well some people are in fact sadists. They achieve happiness by cruelty to other people. This is a fact you cannot deny."

I deny it. There's plenty of psychological research to back up my denial of it. You're conflating happiness with an immediate sense of pleasure or power, and you're also probably conflating a desire to do something with achieving happiness when one does that thing.

[krustyegg]

Ethics man what a nightmare: the hardest discipline in the world!

Here a problem of description and edmarkcation.

Since it is very rarely clear what is good and what is not. So do you know what is good and what is not?

And another do you really know how to achieve it?

And another have you the will power, abilitiy/skill, resoucres to do what is good?

It seems to me there are no universals for ethics, they always depend on context.

[bhigr]

@XOmniverse Where's your evidence? I am not conflating happiness. I am only telling you that some people find happiness and bliss in cruelty to others. If this is the case, then you must recommend that they be cruel to others because it is for them the best means towards happiness

[bhigr]

@XOmniverse Check out sadism and masochism on wikipedia. It will tell you that this does make some people happy. You cannot decide for someone else what makes him/her happy! You don't have an answer to this problem unless you think it is right for the sadist to torture for his pleasure and happiness. This follows from your doctrine of egoism.

[stealthswimmer]

same way you said, but i generally don't say "then you should do this one thing" because there are generally multiple ways to do things. I say "this is something you COULD do to achieve that goal" not necessarily "should"

;-)

[modelmark]

sure there might be multiple oughts following an if, and people can be wrong (if you want to get healthy you ought to smoke) but if you believe in objective reality, than the way to get to an ought is an if.

what is your way to get to an ought?