Column on A Misguided Distinction–or Not?

A Misguided Distinction–or Not?

Tibor R. Machan

When
working out what should guide public institutions and policies in our
lives and human communities, those who chime in from ancient to
contemporary times have advanced various proposals and they have often
been divided into two groups.  Members of one of these advance certain
basic principles that ought to ground the institutions and policies,
while those of the other suggest that the way to decide is by focusing
on the anticipated consequences, never mind any purportedly firm
principles (which tend, in any case, to become obsolete or misapplied).

In
the United States and in other developed countries the former group is
called deontologists while the latter consequentialists.  (In the
history of political ideas Immanuel Kant is deemed to be the
quintessential deontologist while John Stuart Mill the most prominent
consequentialist.)  Deontologists try to identify principles by which we
ought to live and guide our public affairs–for example, a set of basic
rights everyone supposedly has and which may never be violated; this
will, argues the deontologist, insure justice and other good things in
community affairs. For the consequentialist the idea that should govern
is whether some policy most effectively promotes what is desirable–for
example, spend whatever is necessary so as to eliminate poverty and
sickness, never mind if anyone’s rights are violated in the process
since those rights mostly tend to be obstacles to what needs to be done.

Is
this a good, useful distinction?  I have my doubts.  For one, no one
can tell for sure what the result or consequence of a course of action
or public policy will be down the line, not certainly in any detail. And
when it is possible to tell, it is because we have discovered that
following some principle is likely to bring forth a given result.  The
actual actions or policies are not available for inspection until after
they have been tried.  So if we are to be guided by anything, it cannot
be the results, which lie in the future and are mostly speculative.  It
would have to be certain rules or principles that we have found to be
helpful in the past when we deployed them.

On
the other hand, principles are always limited by the fact that they
were discovered during the past that may not quite be like the present
and future or, even more likely, the scopes of which are limited by what
we know so far. Thus, for example, take the U. S. Constitution that
contains a set of principles (especially in the Bill of Rights).  It is
subject to amendments in part so as to update these principles in light
of new knowledge and new issues in need of being addressed. Once
amendments are seen as possible, even necessary, strict reliance on the
principles is admittedly hopeless.

So
then what about the two kind of approaches, deontological versus
consquentialist? Neither is really adequate to what human beings need to
guide their lives.  Yes, they will have to identify certain ethical,
political, legal and other principles–e.g., in medicine, engineering,
or automobile driving–but once they have done so they will still need
to keep vigilant so as to make sure they aren’t missing some good reason
for updating these.  However, focusing entirely on the consequences of
their actions and policies will not do the job either since those are
not yet here to deal with.  They will have to ease up to them with the
help of the principles, more or less complete, that they have found to
be soundly based on their knowledge of the past.

Fortunately,
although our knowledge is rarely complete–and never final–about
anything that surrounds us in the world, the world itself tends to be
fairly steady and predictable (once one has studied it carefully,
without bias or prejudice such as wishful thinking).  It is not possible
to escape the need to balance reasonably well established principles
and expected consequences. With these in hand, many of our tasks and
challenges are likely to be managed pretty well although we need also to
be prepared for surprises.  There is no substitute for paying close
attention.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s