lrresistable Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 Mill & Bentham's Utilitarianism blew out Kant's Deontology a long time ago because it forsakes moral and ethical action (or in-action) under the auspicious of virtuous principles. Even the most basic hypothetical scenario's and rationalities prove this conclusively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Rhodes Posted November 17, 2018 Author Share Posted November 17, 2018 7 hours ago, lrresistable said: Mill & Bentham's Utilitarianism blew out Kant's Deontology a long time ago because it forsakes moral and ethical action (or in-action) under the auspicious of virtuous principles. Even the most basic hypothetical scenario's and rationalities prove this conclusively. Nonetheless, debate on moral dilemmas continue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three-Fingered Pete Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 On 11/16/2018 at 7:50 AM, Lady Rhodes said: The idea is that morality is intensely personal, in the sense that we are each enjoined to keep our own moral house in order. Our categorical obligations are not to focus on how our actions cause or enable other agents to do evil; the focus of our categorical obligations is to keep our own agency free of moral taint. it is most commonly asserted that it is our intended ends and intended means that most crucially define our agency. Such intentions mark out what it is we set out to achieve through our actions. If we intend something bad as an end, or even as a means to some more beneficent end, we are said to have “set ourselves at evil,” something we are categorically forbidden to do On 11/16/2018 at 7:52 AM, Lluewhyn said: From what I've read in the stories and pondered previously, individual actors should follow deontological ethics whereas Leaders should follow Consequentialist/Utilitarian principles. In the confines of the story, I've been trying reconcile the Bowen Marsh/Jon dynamic where the deontological ethicist destroys and usurps the consequential ethicist. Does the deontological now become the consequential since the attitude of the agency has now changed? Oh, and P.S. - @Lady Rhodes, are you selling Trolley Problem books on Amazon? All the ads at the left are for them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Rhodes Posted November 17, 2018 Author Share Posted November 17, 2018 48 minutes ago, Trefayne said: In the confines of the story, I've been trying reconcile the Bowen Marsh/Jon dynamic where the deontological ethicist destroys and usurps the consequential ethicist. Does the deontological now become the consequential since the attitude of the agency has now changed? Oh, and P.S. - @Lady Rhodes, are you selling Trolley Problem books on Amazon? All the ads at the left are for them! Hahaha no I am not! That is too funny though! yes I think the Bowen and Jon dynamic is very interesting more so in light of this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lluewhyn Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 On 11/16/2018 at 3:05 PM, Lady Rhodes said: Oh, I 100% think you are right. I think his point is that it isn't easy. That said, as he has purported many times, the only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself. Philosophical moral dilemmas that consequentialism and deontological try to determine ARE the issue that he is talking about, and to talk about it effectively, I think he is showing that steadfast belief in either direction won't work. One previous thought I've had on this matter are the Dunk and Egg stories. In The Hedge Knight, Dunk sticks with his principles and fights the Trial of Seven to defend himself against Aerion Brightflame's accusations. At the conclusion, he considers whether following Just principles was worth the cost. Had he accepted the injustice of submitting to the accusations, he would have lost a foot, but all of the other knights who had died on his behalf would have lived, including the beloved Prince Baelor. This seems to be a more Deontological perspective from the story, with the protagonist pondering if he should have followed more Consequentialist principles instead. In The Sword Sword, Dunk volunteers to take the blame for another knight's assault of a smallfolk in hopes of de-escalating a conflict and sparing lives. So, he's willing to take on an injustice to himself for the greater good (Consequentialist). Interestingly, the attempt is appreciated but doesn't work, and he gets to resolve the matter in a manner more just to his own person that spares further bloodshed (except for the one bad knight he defeats). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Rhodes Posted November 19, 2018 Author Share Posted November 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Lluewhyn said: One previous thought I've had on this matter are the Dunk and Egg stories. In The Hedge Knight, Dunk sticks with his principles and fights the Trial of Seven to defend himself against Aerion Brightflame's accusations. At the conclusion, he considers whether following Just principles was worth the cost. Had he accepted the injustice of submitting to the accusations, he would have lost a foot, but all of the other knights who had died on his behalf would have lived, including the beloved Prince Baelor. This seems to be a more Deontological perspective from the story, with the protagonist pondering if he should have followed more Consequentialist principles instead. In The Sword Sword, Dunk volunteers to take the blame for another knight's assault of a smallfolk in hopes of de-escalating a conflict and sparing lives. So, he's willing to take on an injustice to himself for the greater good (Consequentialist). Interestingly, the attempt is appreciated but doesn't work, and he gets to resolve the matter in a manner more just to his own person that spares further bloodshed (except for the one bad knight he defeats). I like this! I see this theme recurring often throughout the texts, which makes me think even more that there is something to my theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lluewhyn Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 49 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said: I like this! I see this theme recurring often throughout the texts, which makes me think even more that there is something to my theory. One thing I forgot to state earlier is that I think you were missing Social Contract Theory in your moral philosophy as well, which shows up in discussions about Robert's Rebellion, Robb Stark's war for independence, and various passages pondering what makes a true king (A King is one who protects his people). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.