[Avodah] Balancing needs

[Chana Luntz]

RMB wrote:

>Defining terms, just to minimize misunderstanding as well as to help
>readers who aren't used to them (borrowing from wikipedia):

>consequentialism: the moral worth of an action is determined only by
>its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an
>action after knowing all its consequences.

>utilitarianism: the proper course of action is the one that maximizes
>the overall happiness.

>deontological ethics: from the greek word meeting chiyuv + logia. Rules
>bind you to your duties.

>I am not sure what utilitarian but not consequentialist ethics would look
>like. Whomever wrote the utilitarianism page on wikipedia also doesn't,
>because they write that utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism.

But not all forms of consequentialism are necessarily utilitarian. (ie in
venn diagram terms, the circle representing the set of utilitarianism falls
within the greater circle representing the set of consequentialism).  

Which is why I wrote:

.  And my instincts are that halacha
: is generally not utilitarian - but I would be loathe at this stage to say
: that it is *never* utilitarian, and certainly that it is never
: consequentialist.  After all, the definition of wisdom in pirkei avos
: relates to being able to identify consequences.  Is one not to apply
wisdom,
: or is wisdom irrelevant to the application of halacha?

>In any case, wisdeom is relevent to deontological ethics, as is knowing
>consequences. The difference is which consequences are most relevent: who
>becomes the victim and how badly (consequentialism) or who becomes
corrupted
>and how badly (deontologism)

Why are consequences and wisdom necessarily relevant to deontological
ethics?  As you say, one can well take the view that I have to stick to my
chiyuv, whatever that may be, and it is HaShem's job to deal with the
consequences (and at the extreme, consequences do not actually exist, being
coincidental and organised by HaShem, so why should I consider them?).

I think once you accept that wisdom involves taking consideration of
consequences into consideration, then you are into forms of
consequentialism.  It is just the nature of the consequences that you
consider that becomes the issue.  If the consequences you consider involve
maximising the total happiness, then you are into utilitarian territory.
But considering who becomes corrupted and how badly is also a form of
consequentialism, it is just the value that is to be maximised that changes.


>-Micha

Regards

Chana