Consequentialism is, as was noted, a form of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism does have rules (rule based utilitarianism) that those with that moral system need to use universally. It is comparable to the course concept of deontological moral systems.
A rule-based utilitarian would rigorously work for the greatest good for the greatest number and crush resistance to the happiness of the majority, even when the majority are delusional concerning what happiness is, if that were possible (in a kind of emotional equivalence of superficial Epicureanism). A rule based consequentialist perhaps could be said to be willing to use any premises (antecedent) that would yield the conclusion (consequent).
Consequentialism is more along the lines of act-based utilitarianism instead of rule-based utilitarianism. Unfortunately the evaluation of consequents render the consequent subject to value interpretation concerning the nature of what is good and what isn't etc. Socrates brought out those themes in his dialogues.
Deontology follows from ontology. Philosophers use those as variables these days in language and logic. The late W.V.O. Quine wrote a collection of essay-lectures on Creative Ontology. Ontologies may be regarded as linguistic sets with premises from which rules may be inferred. One may of course structure an ontology such that its rules are variable, although when determined, or decohered from a coherent set of premises (as in quantum uncertainty), one using the ontology must need follow the steady state or thick inferences/conclusions regarding moral right or wrongness. In a sense, that is analogous to fundamental syllogistic logic whereby valid premises generally yield valid conclusions .
No comments:
Post a Comment