How about a post on understanding consequentialism for us deontologists? :-)
The Wikipedia defines deontological ethics as “approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action’s adherence to a rule or rules.”
This definition implies that the Scientific method is a deontological ethic. It’s called the “scientific method” after all. Not the “scientific result.”
The scientific method is rule based. Therefore, if there is not a significant overlap between the consequentialist and deontologist approaches, then consequentialism must be non-scientific.
And if a consequentialist is non-scientific, then how can she reliability predict consequences and thus know what is the ethical or moral thing to do?
The scientific method is rule based. Therefore, if there is not a significant overlap between the consequentialist and deontologist approaches, then consequentialism must be non-scientific.
And if a consequentialist is non-scientific, then how can she reliability predict consequences and thus know what is the ethical or moral thing to do?
Before anyone replies to this could you please confirm whether you are actually trying to make a serious point or if you are just trying to be facetious? You are conflating issues all over the place in ways that don’t really seem to make sense.
How about a post on understanding consequentialism for us deontologists? :-)
The Wikipedia defines deontological ethics as “approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action’s adherence to a rule or rules.”
This definition implies that the Scientific method is a deontological ethic. It’s called the “scientific method” after all. Not the “scientific result.”
The scientific method is rule based. Therefore, if there is not a significant overlap between the consequentialist and deontologist approaches, then consequentialism must be non-scientific.
And if a consequentialist is non-scientific, then how can she reliability predict consequences and thus know what is the ethical or moral thing to do?
Who is the “real” doppelganger?
Before anyone replies to this could you please confirm whether you are actually trying to make a serious point or if you are just trying to be facetious? You are conflating issues all over the place in ways that don’t really seem to make sense.
Most of the vocal population here are consequentialists—if there proves to be widespread interest, such a post may appear at a later date.