[Avodah] Balancing needs

[Micha Berger]

Shorter dictionary this time, just as reminders:
    consequentialism: look at the the outcome
    utilitarianism: maximize happiness
    deontology: look at people's behavior

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:00:18AM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
:>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).  

RnCL wuoting her prior post:
:: 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....

This is the lne that throught me. RnCL, I took you as saying that it is
harder for you to assert at this point that halakhah isn't in general
consequentialist is something harder than that it isn't in general
utilitarian. If every utilitarian ethical theory is consequentialist
(maximizing happiness is judging based on outcome), then it's utilitianism
that will always be at least as hard to rule out. No?

Was I thrown off by the double negative (loath... to say that it is never)
and misunderstood?

...
: 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?).
...
: 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.

I don't think it is. Even though the buzzword is based on the word
"consequence". Deontology literally means "reasoning about rule-following
people" -- and having rule-following people or having rules be followed
are outcomes one uses for ethical judgments. Every ethical theory
would be consequentialist if the term didn't refer to a limited kind
of consequence.

Consequentialism looks specifically at object of the verb. Yes, the
verb may be reflexive, it's the viewpoint of the person being hit that's
judged. Deontology looks at the subject.

A deontologist might say it's wrong to hit, even to hit yourself.

A consequentialist might say it's wrong to get hit, even by
yourself. Therefore causing someone to get hit, such as by hitting
yourself, is unethical.

Ha'adam nif'al lefi pe'ulasav is saying "it's wrong to be a hitter",
which I think of a deontological. Perhaps it doesn't compartmentalize
into either bucket.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
micha at aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger