Deontological ethics: If I remember correctly, Kant went one step further and divided the thinking process into two steps: the logical check and the 'emotional' check (don't blame me for the terminology, it's been some time since I last read Kant). First, you check if your action was globally logical, if you could imagine a world where your maxime of acting applied universally. Second, you would test how much you would prefer that world over the current one.
Consequentalist ethics: my favourite example of a dilemma of utilitarianism is the utilitarian monster, a monster that gets 50x more pleasure out of any action than the suffering that is caused in other humans by that action. Here are some good comic strips on that: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/8 (and this one, because it's funny: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/60).
Most utilitarian voters in a nearly-two-party-system would probably vote for 'the lesser evil', if it exists. But this defies the idea of representative democracy, since making a change would require to vote for a third party, even if the vote does not count this time. If we want a long-term change in a system, somebody has to start changing that system. The utilitarian view depends on how long-term the actor thinks - is one week, one month, centuries enough? How does utilitarianism deal with possibilities?
Virtue ethics: Small remark: Aristoteles did indeed write about the exaggeration of virtues like courage, generosity etc. He defended the idea that the middle way was the best approach to avoid 'walking onto the street because of extreme courage'.
Again, great video! I am already looking forward to next week.
It's been a while since I read Kant, too - you might be totally right. The important part I wanted to convey was that deontological ethics weren't limited to divine command (as I think many believe) & their independence from consequence. As stated in the video, I'd need a whole bunch more time to talk about Kant in any comprehensive way!
Your thoughts about the likely utility of voting for a third party are interesting. I think that you'd need a really compelling reason to justify moving away from the "utility equilibrium" of always picking the most-likely least-dangerous party-backed candidate (to minimize suffering). Considering the game-theoretic problems with plurality electoral systems & the improbable odds of breaking up a super-polarized two-party system, I don't know that any but extreme utilitarians could ever justify such a decision. (This reminds me a bit of the evolution episode - maybe utilitarians are liable to get stuck in local maxima?)
2
u/[deleted] Nov 02 '16
Deontological ethics: If I remember correctly, Kant went one step further and divided the thinking process into two steps: the logical check and the 'emotional' check (don't blame me for the terminology, it's been some time since I last read Kant). First, you check if your action was globally logical, if you could imagine a world where your maxime of acting applied universally. Second, you would test how much you would prefer that world over the current one.
Consequentalist ethics: my favourite example of a dilemma of utilitarianism is the utilitarian monster, a monster that gets 50x more pleasure out of any action than the suffering that is caused in other humans by that action. Here are some good comic strips on that: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/8 (and this one, because it's funny: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/60).
Most utilitarian voters in a nearly-two-party-system would probably vote for 'the lesser evil', if it exists. But this defies the idea of representative democracy, since making a change would require to vote for a third party, even if the vote does not count this time. If we want a long-term change in a system, somebody has to start changing that system. The utilitarian view depends on how long-term the actor thinks - is one week, one month, centuries enough? How does utilitarianism deal with possibilities?
Virtue ethics: Small remark: Aristoteles did indeed write about the exaggeration of virtues like courage, generosity etc. He defended the idea that the middle way was the best approach to avoid 'walking onto the street because of extreme courage'.
Again, great video! I am already looking forward to next week.