As mentioned above, be very, very sure about what ethical framework you’re working within before having a political discussion. A consequentialist and a virtue-ethicist will often take completely different policy positions on, say, healthcare, and have absolutely nothing to talk about with each-other. The consequentialist can point out the utilitarian gains of universal single-payer care, and the virtue-ethicist can point out the incentive structure of corporate-sponsored group plans for promoting hard work and loyalty to employers, but they are fundamentally talking past each-other.
Um, “hard work and loyalty to employers” can also be interpreted as desirable things that raise total utility in the long run. (Also note: the above is not at all an accurate description of any political position that I know off, I was just going with eli’s example.)
This is a broad point in favor of consequentialism: a rational consequentialist always considers consequences, intended and unintended, or he fails at consequentialism. A deontologist or virtue-ethicist, on the other hand, has license from his own ethics algorithm to not care about unintended consequences at all, provided the rules get followed or the rules or rulers are virtuous.
Except, as I mentioned above in practice the conventionalist dismisses any consequences he can’t or doesn’t want to measure as “irrelevant virtue-ethical considerations”. And that’s not getting into his license to define the utility function however he sees fit.
Um, “hard work and loyalty to employers” can also be interpreted as desirable things that raise total utility in the long run.
Sure. But then you’ve already lapsed into consequentialism, and thus stuck yourself with a mandate to consider the trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences. This is not what deontological and virtue-theoretic politicians actually do. What they actually do is see an undesirable consequence, and start loudly pointing it out, signaling “Look how morally brave I am for being willing to let this sort of thing happen out of pure principle!”
But then you’ve already lapsed into consequentialism, and thus stuck yourself with a mandate to consider the trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences.
Yes, and deontologists and virtue ethicists consider trade offs between different principles or virtues.
This is not what deontological and virtue-theoretic politicians actually do.
This is not what consequentialists actually do either. In particular, I’ve never seen an actual utility function, much less using one to compute trade-offs.
“Look how morally brave I am for being willing to let this sort of thing happen out of pure principle!”
Well, this is also what consequentialists talking about trolley problems sound like.
Well, this is also what consequentialists talking about trolley problems sound like.
Disagreed. The correct consequentialist answer to a real-life trolley problem is to Take a Third Option and not sacrifice any lives, every time. If you find yourself stuck in a perverse situation, then yes, you pull the lever, not because it’s a good thing and you’re being brave, but because it’s the least-bad thing available in your perverse situation invented by philosophers who like perverse situations.
Can you give me some examples of this type of bravery by politicians, Eli?
Politicians might address downsides to their policies by ignoring, hiding, or downplaying them (“There may have been some civilian casualties, but the important thing is...”), calling them a necessary evil (“We protect hate speech to protect all other speech”), or spinning them into a positive good (“My new law inconveniences criminals? Good, let’s stick it to ’em!”).
But I can’t think of any time a politician engaged in the proud bullet-biting you see with philosophers.
Um, “hard work and loyalty to employers” can also be interpreted as desirable things that raise total utility in the long run. (Also note: the above is not at all an accurate description of any political position that I know off, I was just going with eli’s example.)
Except, as I mentioned above in practice the conventionalist dismisses any consequences he can’t or doesn’t want to measure as “irrelevant virtue-ethical considerations”. And that’s not getting into his license to define the utility function however he sees fit.
Sure. But then you’ve already lapsed into consequentialism, and thus stuck yourself with a mandate to consider the trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences. This is not what deontological and virtue-theoretic politicians actually do. What they actually do is see an undesirable consequence, and start loudly pointing it out, signaling “Look how morally brave I am for being willing to let this sort of thing happen out of pure principle!”
Yes, and deontologists and virtue ethicists consider trade offs between different principles or virtues.
This is not what consequentialists actually do either. In particular, I’ve never seen an actual utility function, much less using one to compute trade-offs.
Well, this is also what consequentialists talking about trolley problems sound like.
Disagreed. The correct consequentialist answer to a real-life trolley problem is to Take a Third Option and not sacrifice any lives, every time. If you find yourself stuck in a perverse situation, then yes, you pull the lever, not because it’s a good thing and you’re being brave, but because it’s the least-bad thing available in your perverse situation invented by philosophers who like perverse situations.
Can you give me some examples of this type of bravery by politicians, Eli?
Politicians might address downsides to their policies by ignoring, hiding, or downplaying them (“There may have been some civilian casualties, but the important thing is...”), calling them a necessary evil (“We protect hate speech to protect all other speech”), or spinning them into a positive good (“My new law inconveniences criminals? Good, let’s stick it to ’em!”).
But I can’t think of any time a politician engaged in the proud bullet-biting you see with philosophers.