"Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism)."

- Rosalind Hursthouse, SEP, "Virtue Ethics", https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

#virtue #ethics #deontology #consequentialism #character

Does Morality Have a Purpose? by Davidian
https://www.answers-in-reason.com/?p=8147?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Automation&utm_campaign=PAD
#Consequentialism #Morality #Ethics #EthicsandMorality #Moral#Philosophy #Ethicsand#Morality #Philosophy

But in the proper interpretation of "pragmatic," namely the function of consequences as necessary tests of the validity of propositions, provided these consequences are operationally instituted and are such as to resolve the specific problem evoking the operations, the text that follows is thoroughly pragmatic.[49]
#pramatism #dewey #instrumentalism #philosophy #consequentialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey#Pragmatism,_instrumentalism,_consequentialism

The greatest health for the greatest number, including mental health
#consequentialism #ethics #philosophy

My last quote from the essay:
"Utilitarianism is top-down, positing a social welfare function to be maximized, a la Bentham or Pigou. Paretians, in contrast, start with the bottom-up process of exchange and transaction, a la Ronald Coase or Elinor Ostrom. Two people will only exchange goods or services if each perceives a net benefit from doing so — that is, if the trade will move them toward a Pareto improvement or win-win outcome."

Worth reading in full.

#ethics #consequentialism

For Hundreds, if not thousands, of years, we have largely limited the changes to society. With the exception of revolutions (more on those later) we rely on reforms to "course-correct" well meaning systems that were either poorly designed, or poorly implemented.

But were they well meaning?

When merchants undermined the power of monarchs with the help of enlightenment philosophers, and landed gentry serving in newly formed parliaments, they were not seeking the liberation of peoples for the sake of the liberated peoples. They sought to seize that power for themselves. and they ultimately succeeded.

The assumption behind reformism is that you are fixing a broken system. But do we measure a system's efficacy by its stated intent, or its functional outcomes? In philosophy this is the question of deontology vs consequentialism.

The deontologists will argue that what matters is intent, and that no matter how bad the outcomes are, if the stated intent is good, then the implementation is what went wrong.

The consequentialists will argue that it doesn't matter what the stated intent is, if the results are bad, then we cannot differentiate between bad intent and bad implementation.

But for those with Power Over others, it is exceedingly rare for them to admit to bad intent, and there is no shortage of subordinates on which to blame bad implementation. So deontology becomes the philosophy of choice for Hierarchies of Domination, and consequences be damned.

The hierarchies of domination, with their stated good intentions, and their abundance of scapegoats, then proceed to set the boundaries of tolerable changes that can be made to their power structures. And thus we have reforms. The power structure stays in place, and is only altered in ways that do not reduce the Power Over others. Many scapegoats can be sacrificed in this process, and since the appearance of accountability is thus upheld, we (the frog) sit idly in the water, blissfully ignorant of our impending doom.

Reformism is a slow death, and a concession to the powerful that we will tolerate any consequences their systems visit upon us, as long as we get a pound of flesh in the process.

Revolution should be (but rarely is) consequentialist in its view of existing power structures. Far too often, we see a lack of unity of means and ends in the revolutionary rhetoric used by those that go on to enact revolutions, only to have them seek whatever means they have at hand, to achieve an end that cannot result from those means. Again, this becomes deontological, and eventually we see scapegoats being sacrificed to stated good intentions of the revolutionaries that eventually seize the reigns of power. (Yes, I am pointing at the likes of Lenin and Stalin here)

In this way, deontological revolutions are just a more "radical appearing" kind of reformism. The power structures remain, but we change who holds the reigns of power. We don't notice the water heating up as we (the frog) are focused only on the removal of the hand that was turning up the heat, ignoring the hand that has replaced it.

So this leads us to a singular conclusion. If frogs we must be, then we cannot allow the slow boil of deontological reformism, or the replacement boil of deontological revolutions. We need a more consequentialist approach to revolution, so that we never forget that stated intentions and a plethora of scapegoats, do not prevent us from boiling.

#philosophy #reform # revolution #deontology #consequentialism

I am not a philosopher, please don't attack me in the comments

#Deontology and #HumanRights with #Philosopher #SimonBlackburn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4ve3n3uIL4&ab_channel=NortheasternUniversityLondon

#Philosophy #Utilitarianism #IndirectUtilitarianism #Consequentialism #CategoricalImperative #Mill #JohnStuartMill #JSM #Kant #ImmanuelKant #Liberalism #Economics #Ethics #MoralPhilosophy

Reading #Dynomight explaining #DerekParfit I realise that just as #liberalism/#libertarianism is the most inclusive political/economic system because it allows for other orders to emerge within it, #consequentialism may be the most inclusive moral theory because it may contain other systems just by redefining what a “good outcome” is.

That is:

A group of free individuals (liberalism) may enter voluntary agreements and commit to redistributing their wealth (socialism), transferring all power to a certain person (autocracy), abiding by rules decided by the majority (democracy), etc.

A consequentialist, in its narrowest definition, is free to conclude that the best possible outcome is one in which they and their special ones enjoy the best of life (egoism), one where certain rules are obeyed most strictly (deontology), one where all actions align perfectly with the word of god (theological voluntarism), etc. — and to act accordingly.

https://dynomight.net/reasons-and-persons/

I was wondering if there's something like @LaQuadrature , @Framasoft , or @aprilorg in Poland, despite the #consequentialism [1] popular among geeks in PL.

The closest I could find are:

* #ePanstwo - active in lobbying on #OpenGovernance:
https://epf.org.pl/pl/2020/09/30/uwagi-do-ustawy-o-otwartych-danych/

* #Panoptykon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panoptykon_Foundation
(includes #MonikaPlatek - Monika Płatek on the board)

* #CentrumCyfrowe - https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrum_Cyfrowe

So far none on the Fediverse?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism \sim "the ends justify the means"