Justification of Constraints in Non-Consequentialism

Justification of Constraints in Non-Consequentialism Following the generally admitted differentiation between consequentialist ethical theories, where right and wrong depend only on the consequences, and the non-consequential theories, where right and wrong do not depend entirely on consequences, philosophers draw the conclusion that a successful defense of the non-consequentialist ethical relies greatly on the existence and proper justification of the "constraints" that appear in such cases. It seems natural to start our discussion by defining non-consequentialist constraints and follow through by justifying their necessary presence.

In the second part of the essay, we will be comparing some of the defenses we have previously described and will be drawing relevant conclusions.

Following the definition of one of the best theoreticians of deontology, Thomas Nagel, non-consequentialist or deontological constraints can be defined as "agent-relative reasons which depend not on the aims or projects of the agent but on the claims of others." Going straight for the trolley problem and describing the constraints that derive there from will help us understand better what constraints actually are and why they exist. According to this problem, a trolley is running down the track and on its path are five people tied to the track.

Flipping a switch would turn the trolley to another track, where only one person is tied to the track. There is no way of derailing or stopping the trolley. Do you use the switch? As we can see, from an utilitarian point-of-view, the mathematical calculations are pretty simple: in one case, you kill one person, in the other, you kill five. Mathematically, there is no reason why you shouldn't switch.

On the other hand, the problem can be toughened to create the ethical dilemma we need to refer to our constraints. Judith Thomson offers such a dilemma in her own "trolley problem." According to her, there is a fact person besides you. Pushing the respective person would stop the train. Do you push him? Judith Thomson has also brought the trolley problem in another version, where a person's organs can be passed around and save other five people. The question is whether you would sacrifice him.

The difference between the two examples is given by exactly what we are to discuss and defend: constraints, moral and ethical constraints. In the first case, using the switch and killing one person is a "side-effect" of an action we do. In the second case, the killing can no longer be perceived as accidental, because it is part of the plan to save the five persons: it is premeditated.

The moral difference, as such, seems to be in the lack or presence of intention and of the constraints that (1) do not appear in the first case and (2) are present in the second case and resist our pushing the fat person. As such, we can also refer to deontological constraints as "limits on what one may do to people or how one may treat them." These limits can be restrictions against lying, violating individual rights, killing, injuring, torturing, etc.

restrictions or rather the need of fairness and equality in one's treatment of people and many other. In the example presented previously, the constraint is represented by the restriction against intentionally killing a fellow human being. Nonconsequentialist theory thus relies on the existence of such moral limitations and restrictions that stop us from exercising an action. Upon presenting a definition of deontological constraints, it is best to briefly present three deontological ethical theories and evaluate them one against the other.

In my opinion, the best selection is represented by the golden rule, Kant's ethical theory and the moral rights ethical theory. The first theory, the golden rule, stipulates that you should "act toward others as you would want them to act toward you." Subsequently, you should not "act toward others as you would not want them to act toward you." Applied in the trolley problem, this means that if you were the fat person, you would not want to be pushed in front of the train.

Subsequently, you should not push the fat person in front of the train. Kant's ethical theory stipulates that "an action is morally right if and only if it is in accordance with a maxim that the agent can will to be a universal law." In our specific example, pushing the fat person in front of the train is restricted by the existence of a maximum deemed universal law, according to which one must not voluntarily kill another person.

Finally, the moral rights ethical theory refers to actions which are right only if "they produce the least serious violations of people's moral rights." Moral rights complement legal rights, as the former can be considered as including the legal rights and obligations. In the trolley example, pushing the fat person in front of the train would be considered a violation of his right to live. On the other hand, simply turning the switch is less so, mainly because of the lack of premeditation I have already mentioned.

On the other hand, there is also the proximity explanation on constraints, which states that it is basically less difficult to perform an act with unethical consequences in another room rather than in the same room. In the trolley problem, pushing the fat person is an act occurring next to the person involved. On the other hand, pushing the switch triggers an action with consequences further away.

Following this brief description and evaluation of the main explanatory nonconsequentialist theories, we may show that Kant's ethical theory provides the best justification for the existence of constraints. Indeed, in my opinion, we should first of all start with the facts. We have arrived at the conclusion that the constraints generally take the form of moral, ethical, legal, personal restrictions or limitations that reflect the degree to which we can act against someone else. We can, for example, raise our voice to make a point.

On the other hand, we punch our opponent in the face. Kant's theory relies exactly on the existence of a set of mutually accepted and recognized moral norms, ethical criteria which help a person make the right decision at the right time. Kant's entire ethical theory relies on the existence of deontological constraints. These universal laws, as Kant sees them, allow us to function correctly in a society. While the theory provides excellent defense of deontological constraints, there are certain objective objections we should consider.

First of all, Kant refers to universal laws, but he mentions that these universal laws are willed by the acting agent himself. In this sense, there is a certain contradiction in terms here: on one hand, the laws are universal and universally recognized, on the other hand, the acting agent creates them and may not necessarily be mutually accepted.

What happens, for example, if we have a group of people who kills criminals and rapists? The universal law should probably be that no one should be killed without a fair trial. This is, however, a legal universal law and not necessarily a moral one. Does it leave our field of discussion? Not necessarily: according to Kant, the acting agent can will the maxim to be a universal law. In this case, if the group considers that their moral system can accept the maxim, then the constraint is eliminated.

Similarly, in our trolley case, one can resume to adopt a maxim that eliminates the universal law. One may point out towards the fact.