O'ism: Deontic-, consequential-, or virtue-based?

I’m glad you both noted the fact that Objectivist ethics is concerned with consequences – after all, any purposeful goal-directed value system must be. So I take it that Jordan, you reject my distinction between purposefulness and consequentialism (which I see as a sub-category). I tend to see consequentialists as coming to the problem of ethics from the wrong direction. I can imagine that some can still arrive at an agreeable position but it seems to be at odds with the human challenge we face. (By the way, thanks for the references.)

Act consequentialists, as you note, tend to aggregate case by case examples. One would expect that you need a grand accountant to tell us what we can and cannot do in each individual case. Rule consequentialists take a step in the right direction but even here you need a rule expert to do a cost benefit analysis and make a judgment on the rules. Both of these effectively take moral responsibility out of the hands of the individual where it is situated. How can we know right from wrong without being told by the experts? How can we be praised or blamed for our actions if we are merely misinformed by the authorities? This seems to situate ethical judgment outside the context where it arises and where it is needed. It is a very different approach than one that emphasizes character development – created by practice, guided by thoughtful reflection, and exhibited by the dispositions and second nature that makes character a solid basis to meet the challenges of life.

Consequentialists tend to focus on obtaining certain outcomes – as your quote from Friedman implies. As you note, I call this a mechanical type of ethical theory. I tend to think in biological terms such as health. This means developing capacities to deal with contingencies and the challenges life requires and his is broader than the subject of ethics. Thus, one studies for a profession, say civil engineering, not by learning how to build a particular bridge but by learning general principles to face a wide variety of challenges. One is concerned not just to avoid sudden death by poison but one maintains a healthy diet to increase one’s robust response to many illnesses. One is concerned with financial health to increase one’s material options, mental health to withstand the stress and strain of circumstances, spiritual health to maintain the spirit of living and growing, a proper reputation to earn the respect and trust of others, etc.

In general, I take the health concept as a metaphor for ethical development. This is just the opposite of the more common view that focuses on guaranteeing concrete results in a case by case basis. Obviously, there are matters that must be avoided – don’t step in front of that moving car! However, we spend most of the time seeking to live a certain way and that’s where I see the more interesting ethical questions. What kind of character should I cultivate? What kind of person should I become? What interests and skills should I develop? Am I a worthy of living with other civilized beings? Am I worthy to face the challenges of life in general? Am I a worthy human being?

The concept of worth has both internal and external implications if one takes it as a comment on the relationship between one’s character and the world. Thus, neither the consequentialist aspects of living in the world, nor the constitutive aspects of being praiseworthy (that deontologists focus on) need be in conflict. Just the opposite, it is by cultivating character that one becomes more able to deal with life’s challenges. Thus, I see both consequentialists and deontologists as starting from the wrong place and making it harder to get the right balance or total picture. Value-ethics strikes me as a better starting place. However, even in this case, one ultimately needs overriding criteria that isn’t arbitrary. I suggest survival, properly understood, can be this criteria.

Also, the consequentialism I've studied doesn't appear to require an expert authority. Which consequentialists (or strains of consequentialism) are you thinking of when you claim they require expert authorities?

Utilitarianism has been a major argument of collectivists that I’ve known in my lifetime. They would argue that a violation of my rights is required to help others less fortunate increase their happiness. The overall schemes of running such a society and weighing everyone’s need requires a bureaucracy of experts.

I tend to think in biological terms such as health.

Is this what you'd say Objectivists do?

Objectivists argue for a standard apart from a goal. Consequentialists make the goal the standard. My formulation differs somewhat from Rand’s but I think they are compatible. Rand talks about “life” as the standard of value. What furthers life is the good; what is inimical to life is “evil.” In my view, she is adopting a more biological, health-type approach. She argues that happiness is an individual’s purpose (goal) but not any type of happiness. She argues that it is circular to take happiness as the standard. This is what I believe utilitarians do.

Utilitarians, especially in the economic profession, usually talk about desires as if there were static and merely something to be satisfied. However, we can learn to cultivate both good and bad habits; we can cultivate and develop an appreciation and enjoyment of totally new areas of rewarding activity. This then begs the question: what should we enjoy? Utilitarianism suffers from the same circular reasoning as hedonism: you should enjoy what is ultimately enjoyable for you.

Utilitarianism seems more like a rationalization of goals arrived at by other criteria, which is then left unexamined. As objection after objection is raised, the utilitarian merely adds the additional factor to the equation. If I say we need to cultivate character and learn to enjoy X instead of settling for Y, J. S. Mill will introduce the idea that quantity of pleasure should be supplemented with quality! If I say we need a robust manner of proceeding that can’t guarantee results in every case but can withstand the major challenges of life and ultimately prevail in most cases, a utilitarian will have no problem with abandoning the case by case analysis for a long term aggregation as the payoff for adopting a rule or “general tendency.” Mill even discusses "a pain, more or less intense, attendant on violation of duty, which in properly cultivated moral natures rises, in the more serious cases, into shrinking from it as an impossibility."

The reason a utilitarian or consequentialist can get mileage from consequences is because consequences are part of the ethical analysis. But merely focusing on consequences doesn’t yield a unique ethics. Mill had a version which respects individual rights. However, most people today would like some rights violation in order to establish security. Some go further and want egalitarianism. I cannot argue against any of these on a purely consequentailist basis. For example, the person who wants security finds that complete liberty brings the pain of anxiety. The person who wants egalitarianism either feels overwhelming empathy or envy. If I argue that such people have pathological levels of pain and we should ignore them, I’m using other criteria in lieu of the traditional utilitarian focus on pleasure/pain/happiness/utility.

In practice, I find the utilitarianism and consequentialism becomes subjectivism. The whole motivation was to avoid the focus on human nature in lieu of “results.” Of course, any ethics that doesn’t advocate purposelessness is concerned with consequences. But the concern is through an integrated theory of human nature, human purpose, and an ultimate standard or criteria to resolve paths of action. If that ultimate criteria isn’t arbitrary, one has achieve a purposeful, meaningful, and valid ethics. However, I’ll have to back off on the ambitious task of attempting to describe how that is done and whether Objectivism achieves that.

(Edited by Jason Pappas on 1/01, 6:35am)