Matt McIntosh, the Deontic Consequentialist
So he describes himself in this brilliant short piece which elucidates the relationship between deontology and consequentialism.
If, owing to the complexities and uncertainties of life, the rule “don’t lie” produces the best consequences over the long run, and it just so happens that in a particular instance telling a lie led to a good result, then ex ante the liar acted wrongly but ex post did good. I would contend that deontology is a doctrine that operates from the ex ante point of view while consequentialism operates from the ex post point of view. Seen in this light the two are not mutually exclusive…
It’s most satisfying when a major philosophical problem is revealed to not be a problem at all once seen from the proper perspective. Much kudos to Matt McIntosh!
I would just like to note one potentially confusing issue. McIntosh’s piece addresses the variety of deontic ethics native to philosophy departments. Another species of deontology, which finds its niche outside the ivory tower, is willing to maintain that actions may be morally wrong (or right) even if their long-run consequences are beneficial (or detrimental); for this sort of deontologist, consequences are ultimately beside the point. Followers of such hard-core deontic ethics would doubtless object to McIntosh and fellow philosophers referring to themselves as deontologists. Conversely, academic philosophers typically denote these hard-core deontologists as “religious wackos”.
Leave a Reply