Q&A: Teleological and Deontological Morality
Teleological and Deontological Morality
Question
Good evening!
I have several questions:
1- It is well known to attack teleological morality by saying that if a person enters a hospital, then his organs should be taken in order to save many sick people. My claim is that the answer is simple: specifically, this should not be done, because the gain would be outweighed by the loss, since it would become impossible to live due to the constant assault on every random person. Am I right?
2- It is well known to attack deontological morality by saying that someone hiding Anne Frank in his home would be forbidden to lie to a Nazi who asks him whether he is hiding her there (since one must not take the particular situation into account). My claim is that just as there is a prohibition against lying, there is also a prohibition against handing her over, and therefore there is no reason for the prohibition against lying to override, despite its always being true. Am I right?
Answer
1. Not necessarily. If people are not saved, then more people will be harmed overall, and then it would be impossible to live in any case. But a morality that relies only on consequences is problematic in any event, regardless of this particular example. For example, a person would be permitted to injure me in order to save his own life. Or to kill one person in order to save two others. Moreover, I myself would be obligated to injure myself in order to save someone else’s life.
2. This is a well-known difficulty with Kant’s categorical imperative, but it is a distorted interpretation of it. You can formulate a general rule that if a person needs to lie in order to save lives, I would want there to be a general rule that people should lie in such a situation. One should not take the categorical imperative too simplistically.