#deontological

[congregatiodepropagandafide]

deontološka etika

ili nit za koju sam se zakačila na svojim predavanjima iz bioetike: prema deontološkoj etici, ličnost/persona nije nešto što nam je dato već nešto što nam je zadato stoga međusobno potvrđujemo slobode - tako se naše ličnosti razvijaju.

[marsskop]

An experimental piece with Carcharodons.

[ao3cassandraic]

As far as they can

At the end of the Job minisode, Crowley inaugurates Their Side by proclaiming Aziraphale "an angel who goes along with Heaven... as far as he can," parallel to his own stated relationship with Hell.

Only it... doesn't actually work that way. Their exactlies are different exactlies.

Crowley defies and lies to Hell as often as he thinks he can get away with it. He never disabuses Downstairs of their misconceptions about his contributions to human atrocities. He cheerfully lies in his reports Downstairs, something Aziraphale briefly turns on his Baritone of Sarcastic Disapproval about in s1. Crowley even turns evil homeopathic in the latter part of the 20th century, likely in hopes that it will look good to head office while accomplishing essentially nothing. (This, of course, is another way he Crowleys himself, both with the London phone system and the M25.) After Eden, Crowley's default given an assignment from Hell is to see how he can subvert it.

Aziraphale, on the other hand, defies Her and Heaven as little as he possibly can. Sometimes, as with his sword giveaway, his compassion gets the better of his anxiety. Sometimes, as with Job's children in the destruction of the villa, he can try to stay within the letter of the law by leaving the defiance to Crowley.

His default, however, is "'m 'nangel. I can't dis- diso -- not do what 'm told." This comes out most often as respect for the Great/Divine Plan, which to him is sacrosanct. He sounds quite sincere in s1 when he says "Even if I wanted to help I couldn’t. I can’t interfere with the Divine Plan."

Aziraphale quite frequently Good Angels along by parroting Heaven's party line, whether it's "it'll all be rather lovely" or "I am good, you (I'm afraid) are evil" or droning on about evil containing the seeds of its own destruction, or condemning Elspeth's graverobbing as "wicked" (a stance he offers absolutely no reasoned support for, no logic, no "but She said," not a word -- that's very Heaven; most of Heaven's angels have the approximate brainpower of paramecia). Maestro Michael Sheen even has a particular voice cadence -- I think of it as Sententious Voice -- he uses when Aziraphale is thoughtlessly party-lining.

When the angel's conscience wars with his sense of Heaven's orthodoxy but (and this is an important but) he can't feasibly resist whatever's wrong, he offers strengthless party-line justifications he clearly doesn't agree with (as with the "rain bow" in Mesopotamia) or resorts to a Nuremberg defense: "I'm not consulted on policy decisions, Crowley!" Once or twice, he's even vocally aware of Heavenly hypocrisy: "Unless… [guns]'re in the right hands, where they give weight to a moral argument… I think." This isn't Sententious Voice. It's I-can't-disobey-and-I-hate-that voice.

But at base, the angel prefers obedience (not least because it's vastly safer), and he'd rather have someone else do his moral reasoning for him. Honestly? Pretty relatable. I know lots of people like this -- hell's bells, I've been this person, though I grew out of it somewhat -- and I daresay you do too. Moral reasoning is hard and often lonely (since it can be read as self-righteousness or even hypocrisy) and acting as it dictates can hurt. Nobody would need ethics codes if The Right Thing was also invariably The Convenient Thing.

Many GO fans find these Aziraphalean traits frustrating! Especially his repeated returns to parroting Heaven orthodoxy! Sometimes I do too! (Not least because I'm rather protective of my own integrity, and it's cost me quite a few times. I'm well-known in professional circles for picking up a rhetorical spear and tilting at the nearest iniquitous windmill. I often lose, but I sure do keep tilting. Every once in a blue moon I actually win one.)

The key, I think, to giving our angel a little grace on this (beyond honoring the gentle compassion that is pretty basic to his character) is noticing how often he can be induced to abandon an unconsidered Heavenish default stance. As irritating as his default is, and as consistently as he returns to it, it's not really that hard to talk him out of it. Crowley, of course, is tremendously good at knocking Aziraphale away from his default -- he's had to be. But Aziraphale even manages to talk himself away from his default once, in the form of the Ineffable Plan hairsplitting at the airbase!

I think the character-relevant point of the Resurrectionist minisode is making this breaking-the-Heavenish-default dynamic as clear as the contents of the pickled-herring barrel aren't. "That's lunatic!" Crowley exclaims, when Aziraphale Sententious Voicedly parrots Heaven's garbage about poverty providing extra opportunities for goodness. Aziraphale isn't quite ready to let go yet, replying "It's ineffable."

But Dalrymple (who, I think, parallels Heaven, perhaps even the Metatron -- there could be something decent there, but it's buried too deep under scorn and clueless privilege for any graverobber-of-souls to dig it out) manages to break Aziraphale's orthodoxy by explaining the child's tumor.

Once released from his orthodoxy, Aziraphale can't be trusted to handle moral reasoning well; his moral-reasoning ability is not-uncommonly (though not always) portrayed as vitiated. When he gives Elspeth the go-ahead to dig up more bodies, his excuses are just as vacuous as they were when he was convinced of her wickedness. He knows that he's crossed Heaven's line, too, and just as at Eden it's worrying him. That's why he has to talk to Crowley to nerve himself up to help Wee Morag... only he spends too much time talking, and it's too late.

But Crowley can then talk him into bankrolling Elspeth toward a better life. Aziraphale doesn't even put up any fight, both because he's compassionate and because Crowley is temporarily taking the place of Heaven (he's even Heaven-sized and staring down at them!) as the angel's moral compass.

S1 has an even worse example of Aziraphale's moral wavering, actually. Crowley yells "Shoot him, Aziraphale!" and Aziraphale sure does try to murder Adam. Again, he's adopting his morals from the nearest (and loudest) convenient source. Madame Tracy, thankfully, has enough of a moral backbone to save our angel from himself and Crowley.

(With my ersatz-ethicist hat on: this is a fight between utilitarianism and deontology. Crowley is the utilitarian, which is actually a bit of a departure for him, but he's admittedly desperate. Madame Tracy is the deontologist: One Doesn't Kill Children. Aziraphale is caught in the middle.)

I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason we start s3 with Aziraphale and Crowley separated is so that Aziraphale finally has to do his own moral reasoning, without Crowley's nudges. I don't think it'll be easy for him. It will absolutely be lonely. And it may well hurt.

But I will watch for it, because it's how he will become his own angel, independent of Heaven and even of Crowley. And he must do that.

[classickatze]

RIP Emmanuel Kant

You would’ve loved Chase Rescue Bots

[philosophybits]

We may scatter the seeds of courtesy and kindness around us at so little an expense. Some of them will inevitably fall on good ground, and grow up into benevolence in the minds of others, and all of them will bear fruit of happiness in the bosom whence they spring.

Jeremy Bentham, Deontology or, The Science of Morality

[not-spiders]

if you’re ever unsure about something, ask yourself: would immanuel kant approve of this action?

if the answer is yes, do literally anything else

[thepringlesofblood]

out of context spoilers for neverafter ep 11

[patchoulimodelo]

ttrpg designers please stop making deontology real in your fantasy settings

[thornheartfelt]

Save me f/os, save me (<- has an animal welfare and ethics exam that is 3 hours long tomorrow)

[celestemagnoliathewriter]

Meta: Did Harry do anything wrong?

This meta was inspired by a conversation in @thethreebroomsticksficfest server. Tl;dr at the end.

It depends on how you define wrong vs. right. This is essentially a question for ethics – according to the main theories of ethics, utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics – I want to do a little exploration of Harry’s moral decision-making. The ethical theories I present to you are told in very broad strokes – contemporary moral philosophical thought is a lot more nuanced. If you want me to go in depth with any of these, drop an ask in my ask box. 

Utilitarianism: greatest good for greatest number of people, and/or consequences outweigh the method. E.g. ends justify the means. Was Harry’s use of the Cruciatus Curse against Carrow in Deathly Hallows justified? Could go one of a few ways: yes, because it was in defense of McGonagall; no, because torturing Carrow was not an appropriate defense of McG; maybe, it’s possible Carrow wouldn’t have responded to any other kind of deterrent. Utilitarianism falls short when we start justifying things to the extreme – it’s how Truman justified the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan. His greatest good was ending the war soon, but the cost of so many innocent human lives (in this philosopher’s opinion) was unjustified. This leads us to deontological ethics. 

Deontology: duty-based ethics, and/or there’s a set of rights and wrongs, and it’s never OK to commit a wrong even if the outcome is good. E.g. there are certain rules, whether written in law or not, that shouldn’t be broken. Let’s use the example of Harry using the Cruciatus Curse again. In his world, it’s considered an Unforgivable. That doesn’t necessarily imply that’s a just or right framework – law and moral goodness don’t always overlap. Does Harry think it’s always unforgivable? This is where deontological ethics gets tricky – our sense of what is universally right or wrong may not be universal, or may be biased because of the society we come from. As most people would say that torturing someone is morally wrong, even if that someone is guilty of committing all sorts of atrocities, then Harry would not be justified in using the Cruciatus Curse. Deontology has its limits when we start squabbling about moral absolutes and moral relativism, or when we start seeing poor outcomes for supposedly good actions. 

Virtue ethics: we cultivate morally good behavior by developing virtuous traits. The more virtuous we become, the better our moral actions will be. An action is morally good if completed by a virtuous person. We judge an action based on the person who is taking it. While this may seem counterintuitive in some ways, think about it as a way of understanding intentions. Is Harry justified in his use of the Cruciatus Curse? It depends. Is he a morally good actor? Does a morally good actor use the Cruciatus Curse? Most of us would say no to this – intentionally hurting another person is not a sign of virtue. While virtue ethics may seem murky (it can be), a good way of thinking about it is to ask yourself “would a morally good person, or an [insert virtuous trait here] person do X?” If the answer is yes, then it’s morally good. If no, then don’t do it. 

As for what I think Harry did wrong in the series, in terms of moral failures, there are a few caveats before I list these things. First, Harry is a FICTIONAL character. FICTIONAL characters are not accountable to the same morality as we are; they are vehicles to tell a story, reveal something about humanity, or entertainment. FICTIONAL Harry didn’t do anything wrong because FIGMENTS OF IMAGINATION cannot do anything wrong. If Harry were real, however, these are a few of the things that I would consider morally bad or questionable: 

Use of Sectumsempra in HBP. He didn’t know what the spell did, only that it was used for enemies. He may not have known what it did, but ‘enemies’ should’ve been context enough to know that it wasn’t friendly.

Snape’s worst memory: gives us, the reader, and Harry, a ton of information about James. However, there was no moral reason to violate Snape’s privacy. 

Spying on Draco in HBP: when Harry takes the Invisibility Cloak and spies on Malfoy, or when he asks Kreacher to spy on Draco. Good cause, perhaps (utilitarianism) but not necessarily right (deontology). Keeping an eye out for your neighbor and being vigilant can be good, but in this case it was not Harry’s responsibility to do so. (But remember, Harry is fictional, and in his world, adults aren’t fully competent or forthright.) 

Brewing/taking Polyjuice Potion in second year. For plot = good. For deception, spying, and agreeing to Hermione stealing = bad. 

Sneaking out to Hogsmeade, third year. For plot = good. For rule breaking and recklessly endangering his life (even if he didn’t know that wasn’t true) = bad. 

Torturing Carrow = bad. Torture isn’t ok, Harry.

Mostly, Harry makes a lot of morally good or morally neutral decisions throughout the series. Like most people, fictional or real, Harry is not wholly morally good, and the theories above, broadly speaking, can only take us so far. Let me bring in an example of Harry leading Dumbledore’s Army in terms of its moral goodness (or badness).

Utilitarianism: Was the D.A. the greatest good for the greatest number of people? You can argue it was, because the students learned and practiced lifesaving spells that would help them in their later years. They broke school rules, but they learned to defend themselves, and others. Thus, the D.A. was a moral good.

Deontology: Was the D.A. the right thing to do? In a strict sense, no, because Harry broke the school rules. He intentionally put himself and others in detention. However, is there a greater duty to his classmates that supersedes the rules? You can argue yes, Harry had a duty, an explicit moral imperative to help his classmates. Did it have to be through the D.A.? Maybe not. In this case, the D.A. is morally questionable or perhaps morally neutral. 

Virtue ethics: Is the D.A. something that a virtuous person would do? This depends a lot on your definition of virtue, and which virtue you’re referring to! Let’s take courage as a virtue. Is it courageous of Harry to lead the D.A.? I think so! Is it prudent? Maybe. This is why virtue ethics can be murky – which virtue is most important? How do virtues compare across communities? In the world of HP, I’d say the D.A. was virtuous and morally good because of the values they placed on courage, excellence, and developing skills. 

Tl;dr: Harry does make morally questionable or morally bad decisions, but as he’s a fictional character, we need to be careful in judging his behavior with real-world moral theories. 

[dyed-red]

gurl you're such a fantastic writer i keep coming back to your consequentialism and deontology series it made me unwell (affectionate) <3

can i ask you what are your favorite wincest fics or authors?

hiii <3 i'm glad that you enjoyed that series.

for my favourite authors, i'm honestly terrible at choosing faves, but i think you can see the authors i reblog a lot if you follow me, and i have a tag for fic recs that you can skim through.

i would also recommend checking out my bookmarks on ao3, because i tend to bookmark things that i really enjoy or that re-write my brain chemistry.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Praise and Blame

The philosophy of praise and blame explores the ethical, psychological, and social dimensions of attributing moral responsibility to individuals for their actions. Praise and blame are fundamental aspects of moral judgment, where praise is the approval or commendation of a person for their good actions, and blame is the disapproval or criticism of someone for their bad actions. Philosophers investigate the conditions under which praise and blame are justified, the implications of these judgments for moral agency, and their role in shaping human behavior and social norms.

Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Praise and Blame:

Moral Responsibility:

Attribution of Responsibility: Praise and blame are closely tied to the concept of moral responsibility. Philosophers debate what it means to hold someone morally responsible for their actions and under what conditions this is appropriate. This involves questions about free will, intentionality, and knowledge.

Free Will and Determinism: One of the central issues is whether individuals have free will and thus can be justifiably praised or blamed for their actions. If determinism is true, and all actions are the result of prior causes, the basis for moral responsibility—and hence praise and blame—may be called into question.

Conditions for Praise and Blame:

Intentionality: For praise or blame to be appropriate, the action in question typically needs to be intentional. Accidental actions or actions taken under compulsion may not warrant praise or blame in the same way.

Knowledge and Understanding: The agent’s knowledge of the consequences of their actions and their understanding of the moral principles involved are also important. Ignorance or misunderstanding might mitigate blame or enhance praise depending on the circumstances.

Praise:

Recognition of Virtue: Praise is often seen as a way of recognizing and encouraging virtue or morally good behavior. It can reinforce positive actions and promote the development of good character traits.

Social and Psychological Effects: Praise can have significant social and psychological effects, fostering self-esteem and motivating individuals to continue acting in morally commendable ways. It also strengthens social bonds and reinforces communal values.

Blame:

Moral Censure: Blame serves as a form of moral censure, signaling that a person’s actions have violated ethical standards. It can be a way of holding people accountable and deterring future wrongdoing.

Blame and Punishment: In some philosophical traditions, blame is linked to the justification of punishment. If someone is to be blamed for an action, it may be argued that they deserve to be punished in proportion to the harm they have caused.

The Ethics of Praise and Blame:

Fairness and Proportionality: Philosophers debate the fairness of praise and blame, particularly whether they are proportionate to the actions being judged. There is also discussion about whether praise and blame should be distributed equally among all those responsible for a collective action or unequally based on individual contributions.

Moral Luck: The concept of moral luck complicates the ethics of praise and blame, as it raises questions about whether individuals should be praised or blamed for actions influenced by factors beyond their control.

Philosophical Theories:

Consequentialism: In consequentialist ethics, praise and blame are often viewed in terms of their effects on future behavior. Actions that lead to good consequences may be praised to encourage repetition, while those leading to bad outcomes are blamed to discourage them.

Deontological Ethics: In deontological theories, such as Kantian ethics, praise and blame are more focused on the agent’s intentions and adherence to moral duties, regardless of the consequences.

Virtue Ethics: From the perspective of virtue ethics, praise and blame are tools for cultivating virtuous character traits. Praising good actions and blaming bad ones help individuals develop virtues and avoid vices.

Social and Cultural Contexts:

Cultural Relativism: The criteria for praise and blame can vary significantly across cultures. What is considered praiseworthy in one culture might be neutral or even blameworthy in another, leading to questions about the universality of moral standards.

Collective Praise and Blame: In social and political contexts, entire groups or communities may be praised or blamed for collective actions. This raises ethical questions about the fairness of attributing responsibility to individuals for the actions of the group.

Criticisms and Limitations:

Overemphasis on Moral Judgment: Some philosophers argue that too much focus on praise and blame can lead to an overly judgmental society, where individuals are constantly evaluated rather than understood.

Blame and Shame: The relationship between blame and shame is also a topic of discussion, particularly how blame can lead to destructive feelings of shame, which may not contribute to moral improvement.

The philosophy of praise and blame is central to understanding moral responsibility and ethical behavior. These practices play crucial roles in shaping human actions, reinforcing social norms, and cultivating moral character. Philosophical inquiry into praise and blame involves examining the conditions under which they are justified, their ethical implications, and their impact on individuals and society. By exploring these concepts, philosophers aim to illuminate the ways in which moral judgments influence our lives and our relationships with others.

[queerunpleasantdanger]

I dunno I'm actually pretty wigged out about the election. Things are bad, but there's a 50/50 chance things get much, much worse. There's no good outcome here, just like "A little worse in terms of trajectory but probably a little better in terms of where things are just because the courts would get a little less openly reactionary and more time for a pro-labor NLRB to strengthen labors position in the US" and "Hey, so, you know when a right wing authoritarian who likes to try to get the support of militia groups becomes your head of state? Yeah, it's that. Also, all the shit things that are already happening, AND I, personally, as a transgender educator, gets to be targetted by the state", and it's a coinflip whether I live in the timeline where my government supports a genocide or whether my government supports a genocide AND turns militia groups on me personally.

Love this coinflip!

[beatriceportinari]

me and the actual ceramic teacher were both like you know kintsugi's an actual technique you have to learn and is not just slappin gold on things. and he was like well let's do it anyway : ) so i am slapping gold on things. yippeeeee