What I am looking to find out here, is whether more of you are or lean towards that of a Deontological point of view, or, a Utilitarian one. You may have other moral ethical philosophical views(yes, Deaths Head Moth, I know you're an Objectivist), but I'm trying to figure out what matters more to most of you.

Meaning, for example, if you are a Deontologist, you feel that what is most important is the actions you make, regardless of how positive or negative the consequences are that may occur following said action. This also usually involves having a set ideal on something and not changing it because you know it might work out better for you in the end.

To a Utilitarian, the ends DO justify the means. So, therefore you may engage in behavior that may appear to be questionable. However, as long as the end results are positive, that is what mostly matters.

Some fictional examples to help you get the point better.

In Watchmen, Rorschach was a deontologist, and Ozymandias was a utilitarian. Ozymandias killed millions innocent lives, to save the world. But Rorschach did not feel that it was worth it to kill millions of innocent lives to save billions. To Rorschach, killing innocent people was wrong, even if it meant saving the whole world.

Batman was a deontologist. I'm sure this one can easily be debated, but hear me out. Batman had several opportunities to kill the Joker. To do so, he would have saved countless lives that the Joker would eventually murder. But to Batman, murder was wrong, period. And to him, killing the Joker would make him just as wrong as he (The Joker) was for killing all of those innocent people. From a utilitarian point of view, Batman's behavior would be considered immoral, for that. But to a deontologist, he (Batman) does the right thing.

For more information, go here:

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian

Questions, comments, anything you got, please feel free to add here. And of course, be sure to vote in this poll.

I voted Deontology, because as I am continuing to open my mind to the philosophy of heroism and such, and from what I have been reading so far, I feel as though my views are closer to that of a Deontologist.

I have my own personal views, and I don't feel as though I can in good conscience abandon doing what I feel is right, even if it means positive results in the end. That's not to say that I don't want good consequences to result from my actions. However, if I have to choose between doing the right thing or making a positive change, I would feel more justified if I were to choose to do the right thing.

Damn. Just went off on a huge rant about this on the poll of this on the HN.

Deontology is a good point of view for self-improvement and an cultivating a quite necessary feeling of self worth, but if you're out to help the world, it's Utilitarianism all the way. I practice both, but lean heavily towards Utilitarianism.

Many RLSH are too focused on Deontological views and aren't really doing much for the world.

Victim,

The way I view what deontologists in this community do for the world, is that their actions are also saving it, in a sense, it's just that it's not their primary priority, and would focus on doing the right thing before doing something that could be deemed effective.

For myself, one way I look at it, is that I would not want to save the world if it meant being evil, (and by evil I refer to the attacking of innocent defenseless people) because that would mean the world I would be saving would be one that allows evil to exist.

Basilisk,

Not sure if I understood correctly. As far as the example went about self-sacrifice, a utilitarian would protect themselves as well as others because to them they feel they could live to save another day that way.

But to a deontologist, they would put others needs before themselves, even if it means they die that day and can never save any more people in the end, the fact that they sacrificed themselves for the primary purpose of it protecting someone else, from a deontological standpoint, their actions were morally justified.

No option for both? I think this poll is limiting.

After all, morality is a socially defined term simply created as a construct defined by both popular opinion and cultural context.

For example: in India its immoral and illegal to disrespect a cow that wonders into a store.. but in America we would make it into delicious steak dinner.

I think you need to define things a little better. I may be for doing the right thing and follow the law in how I live my life, but really I have no problem killing to defend myself or others as this is perfectly acceptable under the law even if Batman was against it, and personally I feel that Rorschach can go suck a lemon because I have no problem with the thought of millions of pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, drug dealers, etc dieing in order to save the lives of billions more people who have never given up on doing the right thing and always figured out ways to live life even in the hard times in ways that did not to make others innocent victims.

Yet at the same time, I admit I respect life and do what I can to be non-violent.. but I really don't fit into either of the two philosophies perfectly. So really, I do not agree with either one of them.

Mr. Raven Blade,

That would be far too obvious then, and everyone would have voted that. And it is also obvious that nobody can be 100% one or the other. But rather, I would believe that most of you might lean a little bit more of one or the other. If not, and if you're too evenly balanced, then the truth is that you might either not know that much about yourself, or how you may react in a lose/lose situation, where you're forced to either hesitate and do nothing, or, do one act that is right/wrong, while what you didn't do was in another way not wrong and not right.

I made this poll/thread to learn more about you all, of which system of ethics you all lean closer to. It is very important that I learn these details about all of you, and also that we learn it about each other, so we can have a better idea of who can be used for what types of missions and how, etc.

That is only up to me to ask, not to assume. You know yourself a lot better than I or anyone else does.

I could ask you "What would you be more likely to do, if the situation was--" and explained the situation to you. But if it's a completely grey area and you're forced to make a quick on-the-spot choice, and it seems either of two choice would be wrong (even more wrong than it would be to do nothing), one being a morally and ethically justified action which could lead to a negative result, or an evil action which could lead to a positive results for many other people - which would you be more likely to do? Think Watchmen - the ending with Rorschach VS. Ozymandias. Which of the two would you have sided with, if you had to side with one of them?

Depends on the situation

Hypothetically speaking, if you had no knowledge of the situation but had to make a choice, and knowing no choice would be even worse. Which would you do?

Which do you feel even the slightest bit more philosophically aligned to, even if only at microscopic levels? I'm looking for honesty here in these answers, not people trying to sound fair and heroic.

Not saying that to accuse you, but I hope you understand the reason I made this poll/thread and the importance of it to me. It would be very helpful.

I think Rorschach was good intentioned and very heroic, but ultimately either an idiot or a somebody you misunderstand deeply for pressing the issue at that moment and getting himself killed.

You see Rorschach actually agreed deeply with what Ozymandias did, as shown by his actions.

He could just as easily kept to his beliefs and let the world know after pretending to go a long with it so he would have the chance to do so; But he chose not to. He wanted goodness to be in the world and ultimately sacrificed himself because he believed in what Ozymandias was doing and knew he was weak enough to not be fully able to keep his mouth shut.

Since he knew he would ruin world peace with his inherent nature, he literally asked to be sacrificed to redeem the world. The notebook was simply up to before this point, and did not contain any data on Ozymandias's plan because it was sent before they learned of it, so it could only really serve as a record of what came before and contained no solid evidence of anything behind the scenes.. after all he learned of everything and was killed in Antarctica. Anything else could be simply construed as the ramblings of a crazy felon/vigilante.

It could be said that he sent the notebook to remind people what evil was possible, and to help them guard against things getting that bad in the future. Not to disrupt the plan, but to actually help it.

So really, I don't think you are looking at this from the right angle.

Mr. Ravenblade,

While you didn't specifically give me the answer I was looking for, I think in a sense you just did in a subtle manner. And at the same time just made a few really excellent points that I had not even thought about before. Thank you for your input! It is greatly appreciated.

I can only answer with a question: Important to whom?

Big Simon,

Good question. I like the way you think.

To answer, I mean important to the individual reading/voting/responding to this thread.

It is also important to me, to feed my hunger for knowledge. That is both a personal favor for me, and at the same time I also feel it's good for all of us here to know how each other think from our own individual systems of ethics.

To me, they're both of value. Intention and action are great, but without results, they're fruitless. Results are great, but if you went about achieving things the wrong way, then are the results worthwhile? It's a question philosophers have debated for a long time, and I'm pretty sure it isn't an either/or situation. We cannot have results if we don't act, and our results cannot have the impact we desire for them to have without right action and motivation.

For example, the next door neighbor's dog barks all night. I might go next door and ask him to keep his dog quiet, but if the dog doesn't get quiet, I still don't get any sleep. On the other hand, I could sneak over after sunset and lay the yapping critter to rest. Ah, then I'll be able to sleep, but what have I really achieved if I cause someone else (being the dog's owner and the dog) harm or pain?

Big Simon,
As much as I try to analyze these things, I also do try to at the same time follow the K.I.S.S. Theory (Keep it simple, stupid). And while it's good to find your own balance, it is important to understand yourself. I feel that sometimes our actions no matter how good or great they are, might not have any positive outcome, but knowing we did the right thing is important, so we know what side we're on. Not saying we shouldn't hope that our actions lead to good results, but if we allow the ends to justify the means, we could then use that as an excuse to get away with doing horrible things.

Mr. Ravenblade,
Maybe. Since I do believe that nobody knows anyone better than the individual's knows their own self. All I could judge is by what you say. Regardless, I can understand and respect your view on this, too.