3 ms·
I don't reject the consequentialist perspective. I believe that de-ontological and consequentialist positions can be both validly used, and even that if they cl
by Zuider 10y ago
I don't reject the consequentialist perspective. I believe that de-ontological and consequentialist positions can be both validly used, and even that if they clash in their implications, one perspective can take precedence over the other.
For instance, although Kant held that lying is wrong from a de-ontological perspective, telling a lie would certainly be the right thing to do to protect someone from being murdered. Consequentialist reasoning prevails here.
The moral question here is whether the FBI did the right thing in allowing the compromised websites to continue in operation. There has been some interesting discussion on this point. I think that they shouldn't have, and furthermore, that they did not even need to do so in order to achieve a conviction.
- lambertsimnel 10y agoHow do you determine which position prevails? Is there a moral theory of everything?
- Zuider 10y agoI don't know if there is, or can be a general theory of morality, but that does not preclude the possibility that there may exist special cases that offer clear resolution, or that, even though we lack a general theory, there may be enough understood and agreed upon to live by. For instance, it is clearly moral to lie to a psychopathic killer in order to prevent a murder.
- hx87 10y agoHow do you determine which system of morality prevails in this particular case? Your intuition might tell you that deontology is the dominant mode here, but my intuition tells me the opposite.