It should be added that if not being able to know all the consequences of an action, and thus not being able to know with certainty whether that action is right or wrong, is fatal to utilitarianism, it is also fatal to any plausible deontological theory as well. Any deontological theory which is at all plausible must have some form of "disastrous consequences" clause, allowing prima facie obligations to be overridden when the consequences of keeping them are sufficiently bad. But if so, then a deontologist, like a utilitarian, must know an action's remote consequences to be able to follow his moral rules with their exception clauses for disastrous consequences.
(Dan W. Brock, "Recent Work in Utilitarianism," American Philosophical Quarterly 10 [October 1973]: 241-76, at 251 n. 13)
Note from KBJ: If you've read this blog for any length of time, you know that there are three types of normative ethical theory. The first is consequentialism, which says that, in determining the rightness of an act, only its consequences matter. The second is moderate deontology, which says that, in determining the rightness of an act, something in addition to consequences matters. The third is absolutist deontology, which says that, in determining the rightness of an act, consequences do not matter (the slogan is "whatever the consequences"). Brock is trying to defend utilitarianism (a species of consequentialism) from the charge that it's difficult or impossible to know "all the consequences of an action." His defense is that any plausible normative ethical theory takes consequences into account, so if the criticism counts against utilitarianism, it also counts against every other plausible theory. But absolutist deontology doesn't take consequences into account, so, by Brock's logic, it's an implausible theory. Implausible to whom? Certainly not to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)! Certainly not to G. E. M. Anscombe (1919-2001)! Certainly not to Peter Geach! Remember: Plausibility, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Don't let the likes of Dan Brock speak for you. He speaks only for himself.
Note 2 from KBJ: Someone might say that only religious people such as Anscombe and Geach, or only political conservatives, are absolutists. Not so. Jeremy Waldron, who, so far as I know, is not religious, and who is not a political conservative, has recently argued for an absolute prohibition of torture. Brock would have to say that such a prohibition is implausible; there must be a "disastrous consequences" clause. Suppose the only way to prevent the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people is to torture someone. Waldron says we must not torture. Brock, presumably, would say that we may. I doubt that Waldron views his absolutism as implausible. He writes:
Might we be willing to allow the authorization of torture at least in a "ticking bomb" case—make it a ticking nuclear bomb in your hometown, if you like—where we are sure that the detainee we are proposing to torture has information that will save thousands of lives and will give it up only if subjected to excruciating pain?
For what it is worth, my own answer to this question is a simple "No." I draw the line at torture.
(Jeremy Waldron, "Torture and Positive Law: Jurisprudence for the White House," Columbia Law Review 105 [October 2005]: 1681-750, at 1714-5.) What other lines does Waldron draw? Does he draw the line at terrorist killings of innocent people? If not, why not? Is torture worse than death? Sometimes I think progressives believe it is. I have read many scholarly essays arguing for an absolute prohibition of torture. I have read no scholarly essays arguing for an absolute prohibition of terrorism (or, more specifically, of terrorist killings of innocent people). Indeed, I have seen several essays arguing that terrorism is sometimes justified. Something about torture drives progressives wild. Maybe it's Bush Derangement Syndrome. One wonders whether, had someone besides George W. Bush been president during the past eight years, we would have seen such absolutist opposition to torture. Perhaps we will find out. If another terrorist attack occurs (God forbid) and Barack Obama ends up doing what George W. Bush did, progressives will have to choose between their savior and their absolutist principles. How do you suppose they will choose?
