Is Objectivism compatible with deontology?

[R Press]

Is Objectivism compatible with deontology? Can deontology be considered part of Objectivism?

By definition, deontology mainly deals with moral obligations. However, I have heard interpretations that say deontology also consists of looking at the means before the ends i.e. the moral value of an action should be viewed as more important than the consequence of that action. While deontology does not say what actually is moral, it still seems to follow Objectivist ideas in that one should always weigh the morality of an action first, and not embrace pragmatism.

[MinorityOfOne]

No, Objectivism isn't compatible with deontology. Deontology treats ethics as a set of commandments; Objectivism treats it as a set of principles, directed toward the achievement of values.

To be precise, deontology doesn't deal with moral obligations; it deals with duties. As you mentioned, a duty is a principle severed from an end. Rand discusses duties in "Causality vs. Duty" in Philosophy: Who Needs It, if you're interested.

You wrote:

...it still seems to follow Objectivist ideas in that one should always weigh the morality of an action first, and not embrace pragmatism.

Well, that's mostly right. Of course Objectivism is anti-pragmatism, and of course the morality of an action is a critical concern. But notice that the reason for this is different in Objectivism than in deontological ethics. In Objectivism, the first question is what the *purpose* of ethics is -- why be worried about morality at all? And Rand's answer is that one *must* be concerned with morality, because morality is the method of conceptualizing one's actions and directing them at long-term goals. So in Objectivism, it's not that one is concerned with means before ends; it's that one's concerned with means *because* one is concerned with ends.

Deontology vs. pragmatism is one of the many false dichotomies offered by modern philosophy. If you're familiar with Rand's identification of the intrinsicist/subjectivist dichotomy, you can see how they fit together: deontology and pragmatism are just ethical implications of intrinsicism and subjectivism. The solution isn't to reject one in favor of the other, but to recognize that they're both wrong, and that Objectivism offers an alternative.

[R Press]

Thanks for the informative reply.

[stephen_speicher]

MinorityofOne gave a really excellent reply to the questions. I just want to add that Kant himself is the prime incarnation of the deontological approach to ethics. As an example of where it leads, to Kant one of the most immoral and loathsome acts a man can do is masturbate! Afterall, one should reserve such an act for "the preservation of the whole species," not simply something that "aims only at preserving the individual." [*]

So much for Kant and deontology.

[*]The Metaphysics of Morals, "Concerning Wanton Self-Abuse."

[Charles]

Deontology vs. pragmatism is one of the many false dichotomies offered by modern philosophy. If you're familiar with Rand's identification of the intrinsicist/subjectivist dichotomy, you can see how they fit together: deontology and pragmatism are just ethical implications of intrinsicism and subjectivism. The solution isn't to reject one in favor of the other, but to recognize that they're both wrong, and that Objectivism offers an alternative.

Not necessarily, There are different ethical theories based on emotion that are variously deontological and teleological. There are also various theories that purport to be based on reason, which are deontological or teleological.

So there are four categories: Deontological/Rational, Deontological/emotional, Teleological/Rational, Teleological/Emotional.

Of course Objectivism is a teleological/rational theory: it looks at the consequences, through the eyes of reason. Therefore I would disregared non-starters like Kant's duty-bound reason. However for the purpose of classifying philsophies, regardless of their being right, these two dichotomies combined offer useful insight.

[MinorityOfOne]

Charles,

Not sure what you're objecting to in my post. I didn't claim that deontology and pragmatism are *the* implications of the more fundamental dichotomy. In derivative fields, that dichotomy can play out in a number of ways. Just to give one example, pragmatism is not the only type of ethics which can result from subjectivism: there's also, e.g., hedonism.

I'm not sure how your schema is supposed to clarify anything. What would be an example of a deontological-emotional theory? The only way I can interpret that is as distinguishing theories, like Kant's, which can give a reason for their duties, from those where it's explicitly based on faith. But I don't think that's a very fundamental divide, and so I don't see why categorizing theories as you do is supposed to be useful.

[Charles]

I would have thought Objectivism was pragmatic within rational constraints? It approaches new events with tailored strategies based on guiding principles? Not set in stone rules...

How is the deontology/teleology dichotomy false?

What would be an example of a deontological-emotional theory? The only way I can interpret that is as distinguishing theories, like Kant's, which can give a reason for their duties, from those where it's explicitly based on faith

Exactly.

[MinorityOfOne]

I would have thought Objectivism was pragmatic within rational constraints? It approaches new events with tailored strategies based on guiding principles? Not set in stone rules...

That's not at all a good way to think of it. Morality isn't essentially restrictive; that's a relic of the artificial divide between morality and prudence. It's not that morality tells you what not to do, and beyond that, anything goes. Morality is a *positive* guide to how to live. If, as in Objectivism, the goal of morality is to teach one how to live successfully, the basic question is not "what shouldn't I do," but rather "what should I do?"

This is all ground that's been covered, though. I'd suggest taking a look at Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand." Peikoff also has an excellent discussion of the implications of the "restriction view" of ethics in Understanding Objectivism, where he points out that it contributes to resentment of Objectivism and philosophy in general. If you accept that morality's basic function is to cut off options, rather than to open options, you eventually come to view it as being in conflict with your interests and either repress or rebel.

One last tip before I drop this topic, at least for now: if you're familiar with the Objectivist epistemology, notice that the Objectivist ethics is an application of it. Ethics is the conceptualization of human action.

How is the deontology/teleology dichotomy false?

Well, if you just mean that there are some ethical theories which are end-directed and some that are not, it's not false. My point is that it's not helpful. A lot of theories which claim to be deontological actually do have implicit teleological elements, and miscategorizing them can really harm one's attempt to understand them. If you want to categorize ethical systems in a similar way, I think it's best to ask what the intended beneficiary of action is in it. Then you end up with (I think) three fundamental categories: altruism (others), egoism (self), nihilism (none).

[Charles]

Thankyou, thats very helpful - I shall order OPAR.

[MinorityOfOne]

Cool, enjoy it. :-)

Incidentally, I referred to "Understanding Objectivism." It may have come across as though I was referring to a chapter in the book, but it's actually a series of lectures available on tape from http://www.aynrandbookstore.com. I'd recommend reading OPAR first, though, as the lecture course is primarily directed at people who already have a fairly thorough grounding in Objectivist philosophy.