The consequentialist view is often seen as more demanding but flexible, while the deontological view is generally less extreme but more rigid in its impartiality requirements.
The basis for impartiality: Consequentialist impartiality is based on producing the best overall outcomes or consequences. Deontological impartiality is based on universal moral rules, duties, or rights that apply equally to all.
Demands on the moral agent: Consequentialist theories are often seen as more demanding, requiring agents to always act to produce the best overall consequences.
Deontological theories are generally viewed as less extreme in their demands, allowing agents to give some priority to their own projects and relationships.
Structure of impartiality: Consequentialists tend to view impartiality in impersonal terms, focusing on states of affairs. Some deontologists argue for an interpersonal conception of impartiality based on equal concern between persons.
Relation to constraints and options: Consequentialist theories typically reject moral constraints and options that limit promoting the best outcomes. Deontological theories often incorporate constraints and options that place limits on consequentialist reasoning.
Flexibility: Consequentialist impartiality tends to be more flexible, always aiming at the best outcomes. Deontological impartiality is often more rigid, based on inviolable rules or duties.
While both approaches incorporate notions of impartiality, consequentialists tend to advocate for a more expansive, outcome-focused form of impartiality, while deontologists allow for a more limited impartiality that is compatible with agent-relative reasons and inviolable moral rules. The consequentialist view is often seen as more demanding but flexible, while the deontological view is generally less extreme but more rigid in its impartiality requirements.
0 comments:
Post a Comment