Someone

Thomas C
Morality and Its Dilemmas
02/05/06

What does Blackburn mean by ‘deontology’ and ‘consequentialism’?  What role do these concepts play in Blackburn’s account of the nature and origin of morality?  Set out what you think is right and what you think is wrong in Blackburn’s account, giving reasons for your views.

In this essay I plan to set out the meanings of both deontology and consequentialism according to Simon Blackburn, while also explaining these concepts role in the nature and origin of morality.  Finally I will set out what I believe is right and wrong with Blackburn’s account. 
Deontology is a set of ethical beliefs which are based very much so on the here and now.  A deontologist will do what he/she believes is ethically right for the situation at hand disregarding the benefits or adversity that another person or group of people with reap or face respectively.  In the more scrupulous views of this state of ethics, the overall picture, more specifically, its circumstance and penalties go completely unconsidered.  For and extreme example, if a deontologist is set in a room, bound and incapacitated and a voice came over a loudspeaker and said, “You must kill so-and-so (a single person) to...”  The deontologist would immediately interrupt and state that it is morally and ethically wrong to kill someone.  He would not even bother to hear, or it would go out one ear and out the other, that by doing so, (killing the single person) would save the lives of millions.  The deontologist believes that the end, no matter what it is, does not justify the way it was achieved, or the means of getting there, rather only concerned with what he or she does.  
This opens the door to the ethical ideal of consequentialism. A consequentialist asks which circumstance is weighted to have a heavier moral acceptability: causing the death of one person with the perspective of saving the lives of millions, or letting the one person live while knowingly letting millions die.  Consequentialism, as defined, is almost in complete opposition with the views of deontology, because its main beliefs are based in the functional importance of ethics, which are in place to co-ordinate our social lives to make things run more smoothly.  So, logically, if one were following the principles of consequentialism, one would choose the save the masses, while paying the price of the death of a single person.  By allowing for judgment, this allows someone to choose the choice which gives the lesser of two evils more value.  Consequentialism is essential for the betterment and safety of the masses, where the greater good is protected.   In this view, the end does justify the means and ignores the painstaking and sometimes immoral paths to get there.  
Blackburn then sets out and distinguishes the difference between two different stances one could take in a situation of everyday life.  The first is the participant stance, which can be closely taken into account with a deontological frame of mind.  In the participant stance, the only thing that one should worry about is the situation at that moment and how it fits in accordance to the rules.  On the other hand, the reflective stance is very similar to the consequentialist frame of mind.  One who is faced with a decision and uses the reflective stance must first weigh out, what in the end will make this better, more interesting, more entertaining, or more productive for me and the others involved?  While playing a game, the referee must use a participant stance or the very constructs of the game would crumble, because the players of the game, knowing that the referee would make calls based on the enjoyment for the spectators, or the closeness of the game, would loose whatever benefits that they gain from playing.  It is hard enough to play by the rules of the game alone, without being reflective and contemplating other things as the same time.  The reflective stance is used to think about the “good of institutions, (such as traffic rules, legal systems, or games) but it is not to determine the thoughts of the participants in those situations.” (CB 34.1)  So, there is no reason in which these two stances should not be able to work in harmony for the good of society.  There are times in which a person in a participant role must think reflectively based on real emergencies.  For example, a police officer who has done his duty from a participant standpoint and has pulled over a speeding vehicle, on arrival, he sees that the women in the car, is pregnant, and her water was about to burst.  Instead of following the direct participant standpoint, the officer makes a reflective decision, to give the pregnant woman a police escort to the hospital where she can then give birth in better, less mobile, more humane, conditions. There are extenuating circumstances where disenchantment occurs, for example, when a foot soldier, who is in a participant role, is faced with killing innocent people.  When the foot soldier starts to reflect and realizes that this role is against is deontological views, the system breaks down and he must depart/disobey his deontological requirements/demands.
Through Blackburn’s essay he assumes a very specific functionalist view on the nature and origin of ethics.  He believes that ethics has its place in society to help organize our social lives to make things go smoothly. Blackburn believes that if we have evolved at all in our ethical thinking, then the only function of ethics worth citing is the value in, “coordinating human actions, avoiding conflict, generating conventions, promoting the possibility of a flourishing existence.” (CB 32.2)  There is a system of ethics consisting of deontology and consequentialism, that although they appear in definition to be complete opposites, have to work together to create a smoothly running society.  Although consequentialism may seem to have the upper hand in the larger scheme of things, a deontologist could argue that they “can have the consequentialist explanation of the ways of thought.  But we should not confuse explanation and justification, and deontology is a thesis about justification.” (CB 34.2)  For example, the consequentialist may explain the existence of traffic rules and regulations for the betterment, efficiency and safety of roadways, but the justification of the automobiles operator’s actions and thinking by following the rules of the road is acting in accordance to his or her role within the traffic system.
I believe Blackburn’s account of ethics and morality being solely based on the functionalist point of view involving deontology and consequentialism, is very good.  Although I agree with most of what he has put forward, I believe that there are ideas that are wrong, and also very important ethical building blocks that he failed to include or even consider.  One point that Blackburn argues is that a person’s role as a spouse or lover should be completely at the participant level, requiring “spontaneous, unreflective involvement in the life of the partner.” (CB 33.2)  I believe that the role of a spouse or loved one should most definitely be reflective.  If you are not looking out for the overall welfare of yourself, relationship, and family these relationships are most likely going to fail.  If you don’t consider the ends, in a relationship, which is usually survival and happiness, the means in which you are using could cause an ending of complete disaster.  This now brings me to the social harmony, functionalist nature and origin of morality and ethics according to Blackburn.  Although this standpoint of the nature and origin of ethics can explain a lot, it doesn’t attribute the actual building blocks of its two major supporting theories being consequentialism and deontology.  I believe that the framework that Blackburn lies out is that reflective consequentialism is completely codependent on participatory deontology.  To first set out a consequentialist structure for living in society, you must first consider your deontological beliefs as they apply to you.  In doing this, you can then apply your deontological beliefs to an even larger body such as the consequentialist structure.  The participants within this consequentialist structure must follow then, their deontological principles to allow for a smooth running participant society.  I believe that these deontological principles derive from a collective universal innate construct that when running correctly gives us the sense of right and wrong, and creates sympathies which have intrinsic value.  In conclusion, I agree with most of what Blackburn subscribes to, including his functionalist approach to ethics, but I believe this that functionalism is based in an innate perception of right and wrong combined with sympathies.