• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

A Series of Ethical Dilemmas~ #2 This Has Nothing to Do with Ketchup

Status
Not open for further replies.

heirokee

Well-Known Member
I am however afraid that the Heinz dilemma is a debate about consequentialism and deontology whether you are aware of it or not.

As for I simplify the problem too much? It is quite the contrary. Rather I am looking at the example from a broader perspective. As somebody mentioned before, it is utterly stupid to bicker about one scenario. What nobody here seems to be understanding is how the scenario relates to ethics on a whole. Nobody seems to be seeing the big picture (or perhaps they are but you are preventing discussion on the matter).

And you are unwise to think that the question 'do the ends justify the means' is a simple one. It is anything but simple, and of course includes a 'why' in there that you seem to believe does not exist.




That is irrelevant. It makes no difference to the outcome whether the action has been done and whether it was the right decision to whether to action would be the right decision.



I was never trying to hi-jack your thread, and you should have understood that. I was only ever trying to improve the quality of the debate.

As for now, I shall not be posting again unless I should feel the need to defend my own (as I feel now).



As I understand it, consequentialism vs. deontology is only one of the four most basic themes of ethics, so I would consider it a simple debate, in that it limits the debate to only one theme. The debate I suggest includes several themes, including what moral guidelines make something right and wrong (i.e. objective, subjective, relative), whether or not rules should be followed without exception or based on situation, and whether or not good and bad are related to the group or the individual.

And, yes, the Heinz dilemma itself includes that as a PART of the solution, but that is not, by any means, all there is to this debate. In order to successfully debate this, you need to broaden the topic, because essentially, all that deontology vs. consequentialism (or utilitarianism or egoism for that matter) solves is whether or not we can say stage 6 (or 5 or 1&2 respectively) is as good as the others.
 
Last edited:

Conquistador

Vive la Revolution!
As I understand it, consequentialism vs. deontology is only one of the four most basic themes of ethics, so I would consider it a simple debate, in that it limits the debate to only one theme. The debate I suggest includes several themes, including what moral guidelines make something right and wrong (i.e. objective, subjective, relative), whether or not rules should be followed without exception or based on situation, and whether or not good and bad are related to the group or the individual.

Mm. You still don't appear to understand. For one, I am unsure where this whole '4 themes of morality' business came from, as I have never heard of such a term. However, my bickering falls under the statement 'the debate I suggest'.

The thing is, you never really made it quite clear about what we were debating. Were we debating whether it was wrong or right for Heinz to steal the medicine? If so, then it is indeed nothing more than a debate of deontology vs. consequentialism (to but label for generalization). However this debate is not as simple as you seem to believe and, in fact, it does encompass all the attributes or 'themes' you appear to believe it does not (such as subjectivism against objectivism against relativism).

On the contrary...

And, yes, the Heinz dilemma itself includes that as a PART of the solution, but that is not, by any means, all there is to this debate. In order to successfully debate this, you need to broaden the topic, because essentially, all that deontology vs. consequentialism (or utilitarianism or egoism for that matter) solves is whether or not we can say stage 6 (or 5 or 1&2 respectively) is as good as the others.

... Perhaps we were supposed to be debating the stages of morality. However there is little to debate here. The 'stages of morality' is simply used to describe how human moral sense develops over time and age. In themselves, the stages are not normative ethical theories at all and therefore one cannot be debated to be right and one to be wrong.

Instead, you should have been debating which normative ethical theory is correct. You shouldn't have been using the 'moral stages' but the theories themselves; consequentialism, deontology, hedonism, utilitarianism, egoism, altruism, naturalism, skepticism, relativism, subjectivism, absolutism, the categorial imperative, universalism and much more.

Instead of saying "Oh stage 11 is better than stage 7" you should've been saying "Oh subjectivism is correct whereas absoluteism is incorrect".
 

Ethan

Banned
How about we get back to what heirokee originally wanted us to debate. It may or may not have been clear in the first post.

Heirokee, if you would kindly lay out what exactly you want us to debate (even though you may feel you already have, perhaps try re-wording it as to clear up confusion.)

After that I expect debaters to specifically stay on track with what heirokee intended for us to debate. Granted their may be broader topic to delve into(and are admittedly tempting to go into), but apparently that's not the want that the OP expressed.

So let's to re-focus here.

Thankyou.
 

heirokee

Well-Known Member
I kind of think the two objectives of the thread are pretty clear...

the first to determine whether or not Heinz should've stolen the drug, and the second whether or not one reasoning is more correct than the others...


The reason these six stages are used is because they account for age and mental development, whereas ethical theories by themselves do not. The debate has a focus, whether or not you can see it. I suggest we just go off of what I posted to begin with and stop worrying about personal objections to how I should've done this. I was very deliberate in picking this topic. You could just trust that the question answers what I want it to.
 
Last edited:

Ethan

Banned
I kind of think the two objectives of the thread are pretty clear...

the first to determine whether or not Heinz should've stolen the drug, and the second whether or not one reasoning is more correct than the others...


The reason these six stages are used is because they account for age and mental development, whereas ethical theories by themselves do not. The debate has a focus, whether or not you can see it. I suggest we just go off of what I posted to begin with and stop worrying about personal objections to how I should've done this. I was very deliberate in picking this topic. You could just trust that the question answers what I want it to.


You could also not cop an attitude with me when I kindly suggest for you to do something. I already mentioned that you may feel that you were already clear didn't I? Don't get snippy with me when I try bring your debate back to focus.

End of discussion.
 

.TraX.

Bad and Nationwide
Deontology on the other hand states that the moral worth of an action is purely and inherently found within the action itself, regardless of the consequences.

Translation: you remove the action from it's context.

That's a pretty poor way of looking at a situation given you're ignoring 90% of it.
 

Maruno

Well-Known Member
Translation: you remove the action from it's context.

That's a pretty poor way of looking at a situation given you're ignoring 90% of it.
Agreed. The only fundamental truths of the Universe are found in mathematics, which means nothing else can be 100% right or 100% wrong regardless of whatever else is going on as well. Everything depends on everything else, and you have to take it all into consideration. Not to mention that "right" and wrong" are nothing but personal concepts anyway (although society forces most people to have the same idea of what's "right" and what's "wrong"), so one person will think something is acceptable while someone else will think it isn't.

Of course, this fact also allows debates to exist in the first place. I think deontology is inferior to consequentialism, and naturally someone else will disagree. There will never be an absolute "this is better than that"; the closest we'll ever get is "most people think this is better than that".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top