Podcasts about deontological

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Utilitarianism and the replaceability of desires and attachments, published by MichaelStJules on July 28, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary 1. Consider a pill that would cause a happy person with a fulfilling life to abandon their most important desires and cherished attachments, including goals, career and loved ones, but increase their lifetime subjective well-being. If what's best for someone is just higher subjective well-being (including even higher lifetime preference/desire satisfaction), then it would be better for them to take the pill. However, it seems to me that if they prefer not to take such a pill, to honour their current specific desires and attachments, it could be worse for them to take it (more). 2. I anticipate some responses and reply to them: 1. People aren't always right about what's best for themselves. R: That's true, but attitude manipulation is quite different from other cases, where individuals neglect, discount or otherwise misweigh attitudes they do or will have (more). 2. Deontological constraints against involuntary manipulation. R: Deontological constraints could oddly recommend not to do what's better for someone on their behalf (more). 3. Indirect reasons count against involuntary attitude manipulation. R: Probably, but I also think it wouldn't be better for them in many cases where it would increase their well-being (more). 4. We can't compare someone's welfare between such different attitudes. R: We wouldn't then have reason either way about manipulation, or to prevent manipulation (more). 5. The thought experiment is too removed from reality. R: In fact, reprogramming artificial minds seems reasonably likely to be possible in the future, and regardless, if this manipulation would be worse for someone, views consistent with this could have important implications for cause prioritization (more). 3. This kind of attitude manipulation would be worse for someone on preference-affecting views, which are in favor of making preferences (or attitudes) satisfied, but neutral about making satisfied preferences (for their own sake). Such views are also person-affecting, and so neutral about making happy people or ensuring they come to exist (for their own sake). I expect such views to give relatively less priority to extinction risk reduction within the community (more). Acknowledgements Thanks to Lukas Gloor and Chi Nguyen for helpful feedback. Thanks to Teo Ajantaival, Magnus Vinding, Anthony DiGiovanni and Eleos Arete Citrini for helpful feedback on earlier related drafts. All errors are my own. Manipulating desires and abandoning attachments Let's start with a thought experiment. Arneson (2006, pdf) wrote the following, although I substitute my own text in italics and square brackets to modify it slightly: Suppose I am married to Sam, committed to particular family and friends, dedicated to philosophy and mountain biking, and I am then offered a pill that will immediately and costlessly change my tastes, so that my former desires disappear, and I desire only [to know more about the world, so I will obsessively and happily consume scientific material, abandoning my spouse, my friends and family, my career as a philosopher and mountain biking, and instead live modestly off of savings or work that allows me to spend most of me time reading]. I am assured that taking the pill will increase my lifetime level of [subjective well-being]. Assume further that Arneson loves Sam, his family and friends, philosophy and mountain biking, and would have continued to do so without the pill. He would have had a very satisfying, subjectively meaningful, personally fulfilling, pleasurable and happy life, with high levels of overall desire/preference satisfaction, even if he doesn't take the pill. On all of these measures of subjective well-bein...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Deontological Constraints on Animal Products, published by emre kaplan on April 9, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Introduction There is a memetically powerful argument within animal advocacy circles which goes like the following: "We would never ask child abusers to commit less child abuse, so we can't ask other people to reduce their animal product consumption. We must ask them to end it." In this post I try to construct and evaluate a part of this argument. First, I explain my motivation for evaluating the strength of this argument. Second, I note that it's morally permissible to ask for reductions in some kinds of wrongdoings and list different ways animal production consumption can be morally wrong. I create the category of "non-negotiably wrong" to refer to actions that can't be asked to be reduced. Third, I look into whether animal product use might be non-negotiably wrong by listing several deontological constraints that might be non-negotiable. A Venn Diagram summarising results I don't have any strong conclusions. I aim to reduce my own confusion and get more input from professional moral philosophers on this topic through this post. I'm also not sure if I should keep writing such posts, so if this post is helpful to you in any way, please let me know. Many thanks to Michael St. Jules and Bob Fischer for their helpful feedback. All errors are my own. Motivation Some animal advocates argue for the following positions because they believe people have a non-negotiable duty to avoid consuming animal products: Only vegans can speak at animal advocacy events Only vegans can be members of animal advocacy organisations Non-vegans shouldn't join animal advocacy protests All animal advocacy organisations have a responsibility to prominently advocate for veganism because it's the main obligation to animals It's morally forbidden to use the following sentences because they condone some animal product use or don't explicitly reject all animal product use: Go vegetarian. Meat should be taxed. Our school should have Meatless Mondays. Costco should go cage-free. The default school meals at Grenoble should be vegetarian. The public schools in New York City should serve exclusively plant-based food on Fridays. Take the vegan-22 challenge, go vegan for 22 days. Maybe you should try going plant-based except for cheese. According to this line of argument, animal product use is not merely harmful(akin to carbon emissions) but also violation of a very strong moral constraint(akin to direct physical violence or owning slaves). It is non-negotiably wrong. For that reason, including non-vegans in animal advocacy is similar to including slave-owners in anti-slavery advocacy. Asking for a reduction in animal product use is akin to asking for a reduction in physical violence("don't beat your wife in January"). To clarify, as it is the case with many issues, there is a spectrum of opinions here. Some people will endorse some of the positions above while rejecting others. I have been sympathetic to these arguments when it comes to my own consumption. I'm very sympathetic to the idea that since animals are not well-represented, we're likely to have a bias against their interests. When animal interests and my own interests get into conflict, it makes sense for me to be extra cautious to compensate for my own bias. So I'm happy with being strict in avoiding animal products in clothing and food. On the other hand, I also suspect being too restrictive in animal advocacy might result in more animals being killed and tortured compared to alternatives. Some reasons offered are the following: There might be a Laffer curve to the behaviour change created by your demands. Being too demanding might result in less change than being moderately demanding. (Example: The New York City officials won...

There are two major categories of ethical analysis – Teleogical (or Consequentialism), and Deontological (or Non- Consequentialism). Clear as mud, right? Not to worry – check out episode 178 of Business Law 101 to learn about the difference.   Thanks for joining me for this episode! I'm a Houston- based attorney, run an HR Consulting company called Claremont Management Group, and am a tenured professor at the University of St. Thomas. I've also written several non-fiction political commentary books: Bad Deal for America (2022) explores the Vegas-style corruption running rampant in Washington DC, while The Decline of America: 100 Years of Leadership Failures (2018) analyzes – and grades – the leadership qualities of the past 100 years of U.S. presidents. You can find my books on Amazon, and me on social media (Twitter @DSchein1, LinkedIn @DavidSchein, and Facebook, Instagram, & YouTube @AuthorDavidSchein). I'd love to hear from you!   As always, the opinions expressed in this podcast are mine and my guests' and not the opinions of my university, my company, or the businesses with which I am connected.

This episode explores the moral system which not only provides us purpose, but secures it as well. 0:00 - Preface11:30 - Introduction18:15 - Incoherence of Current Moral Theories19:50 - Virtue Ethics & Arbitrariness20:55 - Consequentialism & Arbitrariness21:55 - Deontological & Arbitrariness24:15 - Virtue Ethics & Egoism30:50 - Deontology & Egoism33:00 - Consequentialism & Egoism37:35 - How does the resurrection fix arbitrariness and egoism?39:10 - Purpose and existence in creation42:10 - Separation from purpose and existence45:15 - What the resurrection gets us - theosis52:10 - Existence and pure nature are required for purpose and morality57:50 - Privation theory of evil1:02:50 - Isn't hope in resurrection a self-centered hope?1:11:35 - Resurrection prevents the sacrifice of other1:21:45 - Means are concomitant with their ends1:23:20 - Conclusion1:25:45 - Implications on Christian Anarchism and Othering A huge thanks to Seth White for the awesome music! Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tour YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTd3KlRte86eG9U40ncZ4XA?view_as=subscriber Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/  Kingdom Outpost: https://kingdomoutpost.org/ My Reading List Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/21940220.J_G_Elliot Spotify Playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4VSvC0SJYwku2U0awRaNAu?si=3ad0b2fbed2e4864 Video Interview Version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a1tsRIJQCw&list=PLNrd6lQRh0iZzSxgMo_zhz69clqkD0W9J&index=12 Necessity of the Resurrection Article: https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/a-morality-of-being Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7106065-christian-anarchism?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=Fiu9MyYhqw&rank=1 How Did Sin Originate in a Perfect World? discuss essences and adjoining to God through theosis: https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/how-did-sin-originate-in-a-perfect-world (96) S6E4 Means and Ends: Purposing: rooting purpose rather than creating it, and how purpose is relationalhttps://thefourthway.transistor.fm/episodes/means-and-ends-purposing Hitchens vs. Hitchens Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNlskhOlYBY Making Sense out of Suffering: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/5813894879 Thanks to our monthly supporters Laverne Miller Jesse Killion ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Welcome to another episode of our podcast. In this episode, we dive deep into the world of ethics, exploring the fascinating concepts of deontological ethics, ethical codes, and the role of intention in morality. We discuss the concept of a 'good will' and the idea that true goodness lies in the realm of personal virtue and moral integrity. We also touch upon the concept of a lie and moral relativism, emphasizing the importance of one's intentions and character. Join us on this journey as we explore the complex and fascinating world of ethics. source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology

This is Episode 6: The Deontological of Captain America Winter Soldier and Guardians Who Come Together to Save the UniverseTopics of DiscussionDeontology in Captain America: Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1Premise of DiscussionSo, let us remind ourselves in a tad more detail, since we did touch on it last time, what is deontology?The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or study) of (logos). In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to those that guide and assess what kind of person we are and should be (aretaic [virtue] theories). And within the domain of moral theories that assess our choices, deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—stand in opposition to consequentialists.Where Captain America is an incredibly obvious deontological figure, what ways do we see deontological decision making in both him and in what characters from the Guardians? What are your thoughts? Tell US!!!Notfunnyguys.offthereels@gmail.comHit us up on Instagram @Not_Funny_Guys_ Presents and Twitter @NotFunnyGuysPodand coming soon to BlueSky!Stay Strange, Keep Asking Questions Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Deontological vs. consequentialist ethics. The trolley problem. Societal breakdown. Solar plexus feelings. The Machiavelli delusion. Empowered victims. Protecting well-being. Moral relativism. The Bizarro World. Rationalizing cognitive dissonance. Following your gut. Aristotle's middle path. Missing character. Admirable qualities. The comfort of deluded little bubbles. Moral slips. Reaching for the fresh fruit in the back. Secrets. (Recorded on May 16, 2023)

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Is Deontological AI Safe? [Feedback Draft], published by Dan H on May 27, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Note: This post is an excerpt from a longer paper, written during the first half of the Philosophy Fellowship at the Center for AI Safety. I (William D'Alessandro) am a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy. Along with the other Philosophy Fellowship midterm projects, this draft is posted here for feedback.The full version of the paper includes a discussion of the conceptual relationship between safety and moral alignment, and an argument that we should choose a reliably safe powerful AGI over one that's (apparently) successfully morally aligned. I've omitted this material for length but can share it on request.The deontology literature is big, and lots of angles here could be developed further. Questions and suggestions much appreciated!] 1 Introduction Value misalignment arguments for AI risk observe that artificial agents needn't share human ideas about what sorts of ends are intrinsically good and what sorts of means are morally permissible. Without such values for guidance, a powerful AI might turn its capabilities toward human-unfriendly goals. Or it might pursue the objectives we've given it in dangerous and unforeseen ways. Thus, as Bostrom writes, “Unless the plan is to keep superintelligence bottled up forever, it will be necessary to master motivation selection” (Bostrom 2014, 185). Indeed, since more intelligent, autonomous AIs will be favored by competitive pressures over their less capable kin (Hendrycks 2023), the hope of keeping AI weak indefinitely is probably no plan at all. Considerations about value misalignment plausibly show that equipping AIs with something like human morality is a necessary step toward AI safety. It's natural to wonder whether moral alignment might also be sufficient for safety, or nearly so. Would an AI guided by an appropriate set of ethical principles be unlikely to cause disastrous harm by default? This is a tempting thought. By the lights of common sense, morality is strongly linked with trustworthiness and beneficence; we think of morally exemplary agents as promoting human flourishing while doing little harm. And many moral systems include injunctions along these lines in their core principles. It would be convenient if this apparent harmony turned out to be a robust regularity. Deontological morality looks like an especially promising candidate for an alignment target in several respects. It's perhaps the most popular moral theory among both professional ethicists and the general public. It looks to present a relatively tractable technical challenge in some respects, as well-developed formal logics of deontic inference exist already, and large language models have shown promise at classifying acts into deontologically relevant categories (Hendrycks et al. 2021). Correspondingly, research has begun on equipping AIs with deontic constraints via a combination of top-down and bottom-up methods (Kim et al. 2021). Finally, deontology appears more inherently safety-friendly than its rivals, since many deontological theories posit strong harm-avoidance principles. (By contrast, standard forms of consequentialism recommend taking unsafe actions when such acts maximize expected utility. Adding features like risk-aversion and future discounting may mitigate some of these safety issues, but it's not clear they solve them entirely.) I'll argue that, unfortunately, deontological morality is no royal road to safe AI. The problem isn't just the trickiness of achieving complete alignment, and the chance that partially aligned AIs will exhibit risky behavior. Rather, there's reason to think that deontological AI might pose distinctive safety risks of its own. This suggests that existential catastrophe...

Here is my recent talk that I delivered at USC. The original link can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7aWBQof4nk Unfortunately, despite my request that the Q&A exchanges be shared with me, I was advised that these will not be released. Apparently to do so would have required a signed release form from the audience members who participated in the exchanges. _______________________________________ If you appreciate my work and would like to support it: https://subscribestar.com/the-saad-truth https://patreon.com/GadSaad https://paypal.me/GadSaad _______________________________________ This clip was posted earlier today (April 30, 2023) on my YouTube channel as THE SAAD TRUTH_1550: https://youtu.be/AMCtTLQtgro _______________________________________ My forthcoming book The Saad Truth about Happiness: 8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life is now available for pre-order: https://www.amazon.com/Saad-Truth-about-Happiness-Secrets/dp/1684512603 _______________________________________ Please visit my website gadsaad.com, and sign up for alerts. If you appreciate my content, click on the "Support My Work" button. I count on my fans to support my efforts. You can donate via Patreon, PayPal, and/or SubscribeStar. _______________________________________ Dr. Gad Saad is a professor, evolutionary behavioral scientist, and author who pioneered the use of evolutionary psychology in marketing and consumer behavior. In addition to his scientific work, Dr. Saad is a leading public intellectual who often writes and speaks about idea pathogens that are destroying logic, science, reason, and common sense. _______________________________________

The Mauritanian (2021): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4761112/ Mohamedou Ould Slahi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi _______________________________________ If you appreciate my work and would like to support it: https://subscribestar.com/the-saad-truth https://patreon.com/GadSaad https://paypal.me/GadSaad _______________________________________ This clip was posted earlier today (March 29, 2023) on my YouTube channel as THE SAAD TRUTH_1531: https://youtu.be/bdmsKP-XrGI _______________________________________ My forthcoming book The Saad Truth about Happiness: 8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life is now available for pre-order: https://www.amazon.com/Saad-Truth-about-Happiness-Secrets/dp/1684512603 _______________________________________ Please visit my website gadsaad.com, and sign up for alerts. If you appreciate my content, click on the "Support My Work" button. I count on my fans to support my efforts. You can donate via Patreon, PayPal, and/or SubscribeStar. _______________________________________ Dr. Gad Saad is a professor, evolutionary behavioral scientist, and author who pioneered the use of evolutionary psychology in marketing and consumer behavior. In addition to his scientific work, Dr. Saad is a leading public intellectual who often writes and speaks about idea pathogens that are destroying logic, science, reason, and common sense. _______________________________________  

In this episode we tackle one of the most famous thought experiments ever.  Should Utilitarian or Deontological ethics inform our decision on how to act when deciding who deserves to live or die?  We also spend some time discussing a different thought experiment: The Prisoner's Dilemma.  Josh and Kelly match wits to see who emerges victorious and who loses everything!

Link to the conference along with all of the videotaped sessions: https://cli.stanford.edu/events/conference-symposium/academic-freedom-conference _______________________________________ If you appreciate my work and would like to support it: https://subscribestar.com/the-saad-truth https://patreon.com/GadSaad https://paypal.me/GadSaad _______________________________________ This clip was posted earlier today (November 19, 2022) on my YouTube channel as THE SAAD TRUTH_1485: https://youtu.be/oO7LWhQcxGI _______________________________________ The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense (paperback edition) was released on October 5, 2021. Order your copy now. https://www.amazon.com/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/162157959X/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= https://www.amazon.ca/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/162157959X https://www.amazon.co.uk/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/162157959X _______________________________________ Please visit my website gadsaad.com, and sign up for alerts. If you appreciate my content, click on the "Support My Work" button. I count on my fans to support my efforts. You can donate via Patreon, PayPal, and/or SubscribeStar. _______________________________________ Dr. Gad Saad is a professor, evolutionary behavioral scientist, and author who pioneered the use of evolutionary psychology in marketing and consumer behavior. In addition to his scientific work, Dr. Saad is a leading public intellectual who often writes and speaks about idea pathogens that are destroying logic, science, reason, and common sense. _______________________________________  

0:00 - Introduction7:45 - Incoherence of Current Moral Theories8:20 - Virtue Ethics & Arbitrariness9:25 - Consequentialism & Arbitrariness10:15 - Deontological & Arbitrariness12:45 - Virtue Ethics & Egoism19:20 - Deontology & Egoism21:30 - Consequentialism & Egoism26:05 - How does the resurrection fix arbitrariness and egoism?27:40 - Purpose and existence in creation30:40 - Separation from purpose and existence33:45 - What the resurrection gets us - theosis40:40 - Existence and pure nature are required for purpose and morality46:20 - Privation theory of evil51:20 - Isn't hope in resurrection a self-centered hope?1:00:05 - Resurrection prevents the sacrifice of other1:10:15 - Means are concomitant with their ends1:11:50 - Conclusion1:14:15 - Implications on Christian Anarchism and Othering A huge thanks to Seth White for the awesome music! Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tour YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTd3KlRte86eG9U40ncZ4XA?view_as=subscriber Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/  Kingdom Outpost: https://kingdomoutpost.org/ My Reading List Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/21940220.J_G_Elliot My Reading List Google Docs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10h_yL0vO8-Ja_sxUJFclff11nwUONOG6/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103262818858083924733&rtpof=true&sd=true Video Interview Version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a1tsRIJQCw&list=PLNrd6lQRh0iZzSxgMo_zhz69clqkD0W9J&index=12 Necessity of the Resurrection Article: https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/a-morality-of-being Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7106065-christian-anarchism?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=Fiu9MyYhqw&rank=1 How Did Sin Originate in a Perfect World? discuss essences and adjoining to God through theosis: https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/how-did-sin-originate-in-a-perfect-world (96) S6E4 Means and Ends: Purposing: rooting purpose rather than creating it, and how purpose is relationalhttps://thefourthway.transistor.fm/episodes/means-and-ends-purposing Hitchens vs. Hitchens Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNlskhOlYBY ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

If you appreciate my work and would like to support it: https://subscribestar.com/the-saad-truth https://patreon.com/GadSaad https://paypal.me/GadSaad _______________________________________ This clip was posted earlier today (June 29, 2022) on my YouTube channel as THE SAAD TRUTH_1424: https://youtu.be/Y09FJaE8oEY _______________________________________ The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense (paperback edition) was released on October 5, 2021. Order your copy now. https://www.amazon.com/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/162157959X/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= https://www.amazon.ca/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/162157959X https://www.amazon.co.uk/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/162157959X _______________________________________ Please visit my website gadsaad.com, and sign up for alerts. If you appreciate my content, click on the "Support My Work" button. I count on my fans to support my efforts. You can donate via Patreon, PayPal, and/or SubscribeStar. _______________________________________ Dr. Gad Saad is a professor, evolutionary behavioral scientist, and author who pioneered the use of evolutionary psychology in marketing and consumer behavior. In addition to his scientific work, Dr. Saad is a leading public intellectual who often writes and speaks about idea pathogens that are destroying logic, science, reason, and common sense. _______________________________________

How bad is North Korea as a state?In this episode, Ezechiel and Andy discuss moral relativism and whether we can say that one society is "better" than another. Is the US better than North Korea? In what way? Is there an objective way to judge the "goodness" of a society?Join us for your weekly dose of Daily Philosophy!Brought to you by https://daily-philosophy.com.Music: Nightlife by Michael Kobrin, from: https://pixabay.com/music.00:00:00 Introduction00:01:06 Is there non-rational ethics?00:02:01 Is incest always morally wrong?00:04:42 The value of moral intuitions00:08:17 How bad is North Korea as a state?00:09:52 Political systems and "true well-being"00:11:15 Poverty vs moral badness00:14:12 The responsibility of the international community00:16:49 The role of Consequentialism in moral arguments00:17:33 Deontological ethics vs consequentialism00:18:58 Plato (428-348 BC)00:19:41 Does capitalism make us happy?00:20:29 Amish society00:21:08 Epicurus, philosopher (341–270 BC)00:23:22 Being blind about one's own culture00:26:40 Judging values vs judging procedural aspects00:29:09 Jordan Peterson's interview with Yeonmi Park00:31:03 Are we in a position to criticise other cultures?00:35:27 Factual judgments vs moral judgmentsAccented Philosophy - Every Tuesday (or thereabouts)

Human autonomyIn this episode, Ezechiel and Andy ask what autonomy really is. What does it mean to be "free"? Are drug addicts free? And what is unique about human beings?Join us for a weekly dose of Daily Philosophy!Brought to you by https://daily-philosophy.com.Music: Nightlife by Michael Kobrin, from: https://pixabay.com/music.00:01:47 What is unique about humans?00:06:39 Is everybody special?00:08:51 Deontological ethics00:09:27 Uniqueness and dignity 00:14:08 Are religious societies better?00:15:59 Is freedom the absence of obstacles? 00:16:50 Meritocracy00:19:08 Protestant work ethic00:20:59 Autonomy00:21:16 Harry Frankfurt (1929-) on autonomy00:22:49 Addiction and freedom 00:26:47 Ronald Dworkin (1931-2013)00:28:06 Autonomy as the capacity to question one's will00:28:45 Orthonomy (Pettit and Smith 1993)00:32:20 Relational autonomy00:34:50 Autonomy and the technological world00:36:52 Is capitalism the real problem?00:39:20 What is the human brain for?Philosophers and theories mentioned:00:08:51 Deontological ethics00:16:50 Meritocracy00:21:16 Harry Frankfurt (1929-) on autonomy00:26:47 Ronald Dworkin (1931-2013)00:28:45 Orthonomy (Pettit and Smith 1993)00:32:20 Relational autonomyAccented Philosophy - Every Tuesday (or thereabouts :))

What is Deep Ecology?In this episode, Ezechiel and Andy discuss Deep Ecology. What is it, where does the idea come from, and is it always clear what the theory demands of us?Join us for an hour-long dose of your Daily Philosophy and explore with us the philosophical issues surrounding deep ecology.Brought to you by https://daily-philosophy.com.Music: Nightlife by Michael Kobrin, from: https://pixabay.com/music.00:00:11 Deep ecology00:00:36 Shallow and deep ecology 00:02:33 Anthropocentrism00:05:26 Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) 00:07:37 Arne Naess (1912-2009)00:08:08 Self-realisation00:13:04 The myth of Prometheus00:17:35 Fair consumption of resources00:20:20 Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) 00:21:49 Peter Singer00:22:48 Utilitarianism 00:23:37 Life's will to survive -- life vs consciousness00:25:27 Is there a “right to life”?00:26:09 “Chimeras”: see prev. episode of this podcast!00:27:07 The eight principles of Deep Ecology00:29:58 Speciesism00:31:30 Preserving diversity 00:36:43 What are “vital human needs”?00:42:19 The need to decrease the human population00:44:12 Deontological ethics00:46:26 Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)00:48:01 Population control policies 00:48:18 China's one-child policy00:52:51 Quality of life vs material standard of life00:55:30 Maslow's hierarchy of needs00:56:54 Do we have an obligation to act?00:58:14 Peter Singer: Drowning child argument01:01:45 Eco-feminism01:02:00 Rationalism and false dichotomies Philosophers and theories mentioned:00:00:36 Shallow and deep ecology 00:02:33 Anthropocentrism00:05:26 Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) 00:07:37 Arne Naess (1912-2009)00:13:04 The myth of Prometheus00:20:20 Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) 00:21:49 Peter Singer00:22:48 Utilitarianism 00:29:58 Speciesism00:44:12 Deontological ethics00:46:26 Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)00:55:30 Maslow's hierarchy of needs00:58:14 Peter Singer: Drowning child argument01:01:45 Eco-feminismNext episode: Small is Beautiful - Sustainable EconomicsAccented Philosophy - Every Tuesday.

Today we bring back one of our favorites, https://the-secular-foxhole.captivate.fm/episode/interview-with-james-valliant (James Valliant), an Ayn Rand scholar, whom along with Martin and I, discuss Miss Rand's seminal essay, "https://courses.aynrand.org/works/faith-and-force-the-destroyers-of-the-modern-world/ (Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World.)" Don't Miss It! Show notes with links to articles, blog posts, products and services: http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works/faith-and-force.html (Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World) https://ari.aynrand.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FCIT_What_You_Can_Do.pdf (What You Can Do) https://www.britannica.com/biography/Auguste-Comte (Auguste Comte) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics (Deontological ethics) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collectivism.html (Collectivism) https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/316255/ominous-parallels-by-leonard-peikoff/ (Ominous Parallels) https://www.britannica.com/topic/pure-reason ("Pure reason") http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html (Racism) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3294018-personal-destinies (Personal Destinies: A Philosophy of Ethical Individualism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Herman_Randall_Jr. (John Herman Randall Jr.) https://aynrandsociety.org (The Ayn Rand Society) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/envy-hatred_of_the_good_for_being_the_good.html (Age of Envy) Episode 22 (40 minutes) was recorded at 10 PM CET, on May 14, 2021, with https://ringr.com/ego (Ringr app). Support this podcast

Chimeras: Animals as hosts for human organs?In this episode, Ezechiel and Andy discuss the complex ethics of growing human organs in animal hosts. Are we in danger of creating human-like animals? Could such animals claim human rights? And are we sufficiently respecting the dignity of such animal hosts?Join us for an hour-long dose of your Daily Philosophy and take part in a thrilling exploration of the philosophical issues surrounding  modern transplantation medicine.Brought to you by https://daily-philosophy.com.Music: Nightlife by Michael Kobrin, from: https://pixabay.com/music.Please note that we had some technical issues recording this episode, which resulted in us re-recording a few minutes of the episode at a different date. This is why a handful of short snippets of the recording sound a bit different from the rest. Don't worry, your ears are fine.00:00:35 Intro 00:01:30 Chimeras: Monkeys as hosts for human organs 00:02:42 What is new about chimeras? 00:04:00 The word “chimera” 00:06:06 Overview of the moral issues00:07:45 The need for organs 00:09:35 Intentions vs outcomes in ethics00:13:04 Is it ethical to kill anyone for their organs?00:14:10 The “trolley problem”00:15:30 The doctrine of double effect 00:17:16 The “humanity” of chimeras00:19:32 Do monkeys have different moral status from pigs?00:21:00 The problem of animal suffering00:22:21 The analogy to meat production00:24:36 Jeremy Bentham on animal suffering00:24:59 Peter Singer on speciesism00:30:08 Aristotle and the flourishing of humans and animals00:31:19 Kant: Autonomy and human dignity00:37:57 Deontological arguments00:39:15 Do pigs have dignity?00:40:13 Being human vs being a person00:42:16 Mary Anne Warren on personhood 00:44:20 The danger of creating human-like life accidentally00:49:30 Manipulating animal development00:50:21 The Christian argument00:56:02 The dignity of animals 01:00:01 Is high-tech medicine ethical?01:03:20 ConclusionPhilosophers and theories mentioned:00:14:10 The “trolley problem”00:15:30 The doctrine of double effect 00:24:36 Jeremy Bentham on animal suffering00:24:59 Peter Singer on speciesism00:30:08 Aristotle and the flourishing of humans and animals00:31:19 Kant: Autonomy and human dignity00:37:57 Deontological arguments00:42:16 Mary Anne Warren on personhood 00:50:21 The Christian argumentNext episode: The ethics of exporting deadly drugs for US executions.Accented Philosophy - Every Tuesday.

Follow Stacey as she forges a path of exploration on all things strange and dangerous!! Send all mail to fringewithbenefits@protonmail.com!!! Stacey's Social: https://www.thedailybeast.com/dr-ronald-ilg-of-spokane-charged-with-insane-dark-web-kidnapping-plot?fbclid=IwAR0rqd8D8gLk4N1kVEEl9bi7-qxfWVNTU0Odin27emIGQKNkOXn-ZBPbWIA https://www.dailydot.com/irl/makeshift-toilets-homeless-community/ https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-covid-vaccines-production-outside-united-states-2021-4 https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/creepy-doll-timmy-paranormal-tiktok-video/ Mailbag: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ghost-stories_b_8296528 Weekly Topic: ISBN: 978-0-07-353568-5 Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues Vincent Ryan Ruggiero https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm Guest: https://nojabforme.info/ ISSM: https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian%20ethics.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics Support the Show ---------------->https://anchor.fm/stacey-mccolley Donations for Inward Survival-----------------> www.inwardsurvival.com Mailbag----------------------> fringewithbenefits@protonmail.com --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/stacey-mccolley/support

Josh (https://josh-milburn.com/ & https://twitter.com/JoshLMilburn & https://www.instagram.com/aveganphilosopher/) is a moral & political philosopher with research interests in animal ethics, the philosophy of food, liberal & libertarian political theory & applied ethics. He is a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow in the Dept of Politics & International Relations at the University of Sheffield. He co-hosts the Knowing Animals podcast. In these Sentientist Conversations we talk about the two most important questions: “what’s real?” & “what matters?” Sentientism is "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings." The video of our conversation is here on YouTube: https://youtu.be/akBBFREpveU. We discuss: - Taking an interdisciplinary approach to academia & activism - Encountering various religious traditions as a child - Thinking "I don't believe that" at 8 years old re: Noah's ark - Being a "militant atheist" as a teenager - Studying religions to undergrad level - What is real & what we can know to be real - There is a world out there but we don't know all about it - Science & naturalism - Dogma vs open-mindedness & humility - Moral realism & different kinds of claim/evidence - The dangers of moral relativism & nihilism - Grounding morality in a naturalistic understanding of sentient beings & sentience. "I don't suffering & I don't think you do either" - Pluralism - Religious studies didn't cover philosophy - Being very resistant to vegetarianism. A fundamental challenge - Reading Peter Singer at 17 while considering studying philosophy - "Philosophers are often not the best activists" - Philosophical arguments don't have the same impact on everyone - Some people "get it" but still don't change. Others just don't get it - "Imagine animals had rights - how would we feed the world?... It would't be a vegan food system." Clean/cultivated meats & milks - "Can we get to an ethical food system without people having to change their practices at all?" - Animals where it's less certain whether they are sentient. Invertebrates, oysters, jellyfish, insects, sponges - Deciding how to act in the face of uncertainty - "It's got to be a high bar to say 'you cannot do that thing that is central to your life'" but "Sentient animals have rights" and that's enough to tell pig farmers to stop - Edge cases re: veganism & animal ethics - Liberalism & state coercion. Only using coercion when injustice is clear - Having compassion for human sentients too, even those doing harm - #JustTransition - The history of the term "Sentientism". Rodman, Ryder, Singer - It's hard not to be consequentialist in its broadest sense - Deontological rules do have to pay attention to what happens - Gary Francione's abolitionism - Sue Donaldson & Will Kymlicka's Zoopolis - Sentientism as a pluralistic philosophy - "Animal activists don't have to be on the political left" - Sentientism rules out intra-human discriminations. Racism/homophobia etc. don't belong - Robert Nozick was a vegetarian & a libertarian - And much more. See https://sentientism.info/ or YouTube for full show notes. Sentientism is “Evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings.” More at https://sentientism.info/​​​​​​​​​​​​​. Join Josh on our "wall" https://sentientism.info/wall/ using this form: https://sentientism.info/im-a-sentientist​. ​Everyone interested, Sentientist or not, is welcome to join our groups. Main one: https://www.facebook.com/groups/sentientism​. Thanks to Graham for the post-prod https://twitter.com/cgbessellieu.

Memes I In which we go over some of the history of memes and their impact on the modern world. Stay til the end for our Top 5 memes of all time!   Richard Dawkins: https://richarddawkins.net/   The Selfish Gene: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene   Bernie Sanders mittens meme: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bernie-sanders-wearing-mittens-sitting-in-a-chair   GPT-3: https://openai.com/blog/openai-api/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8yVOC4ciXc&t=164s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rURRYI66E54&t=1098s   DALL-E (not WALL-E): https://openai.com/blog/dall-e/   Transformers: https://towardsdatascience.com/transformers-141e32e69591   Memebase: https://memebase.cheezburger.com/   Renard Queenston: https://halleylabs.com/   Michael Rosen Youtube Poop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTkN_KNJSE0   Bee Movie Technical Memes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPDgEUAowPA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMG1Nl7uWko   We Are Number One/Monsters Inc: https://youtu.be/yeh708tybpM   Sweet Bro and Hella Jeff: https://www.homestuck.com/sweet-bro-and-hella-jeff/1   Deep fried memes: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/deep-fried-memes   Expanding Brain/Galaxy Brain: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/galaxy-brain   Buff guys on laptops: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/buff-guys-help-out-nerdy-kid   GI Joe PSA parodies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8K08AcVru0   That's what she said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqZci_8wuC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUGfs9rwms   Trolley Problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem   Multitrack drifting: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/multi-track-drifting   Deontology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics   Utilitarianism/Consequentialism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/   Pornhub drumbeat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frV7RQE3QvY   Contrafacts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrafact   Gallant schemata: http://openmusictheory.com/schemataSummary.html   Wojack: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wojak   Money printer go brrr: https://imgflip.com/tag/haha+money+printer+go+brrr?sort=top-2020-04   Death Grips discography portrayed by The Office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNL0tmBueuI   Spongebob/Radiohead:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2wig-kqZ98   Spiderman death grips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SThRvg6cdQI   Death Grips remixes (NSFW): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFWHB40N4pE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8g2kPu4J8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPrzkkbxFeQ   The Lick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BP2UZvq7nE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krDxhnaKD7Q   Music: https://soundcloud.com/glossolalia-online/wobbly https://soundcloud.com/glossolalia-online/the-plot-thickens https://soundcloud.com/trevor-villwock/garbage-patch-kids    

MCQ-30 (Medical Ethics and Professionalism) Dr RR Baliga's 'Got Knowledge Doc' PodKasts for Physicians derived from chapter Medical Ethics and Professionalism in Baliga's Textbook of Internal Medicine with 1480 MCQs www.MasterMedFacts.com   by C.Ronald MacKenzie, MD Professor of Clinical Medicine & Medical Ethics Weill Medical College of Cornell University

MCQ-29 (Medical Ethics and Professionalism) Dr RR Baliga's 'Got Knowledge Doc' PodKasts for Physicians derived from chapter Medical Ethics and Professionalism in Baliga's Textbook of Internal Medicine with 1480 MCQs www.MasterMedFacts.com   by C.Ronald MacKenzie, MD Professor of Clinical Medicine & Medical Ethics Weill Medical College of Cornell University

MCQ-28 (Medical Ethics and Professionalism) Dr RR Baliga's 'Got Knowledge Doc' PodKasts for Physicians derived from chapter Medical Ethics and Professionalism in Baliga's Textbook of Internal Medicine with 1480 MCQs www.MasterMedFacts.com   by C.Ronald MacKenzie, MD Professor of Clinical Medicine & Medical Ethics Weill Medical College of Cornell University

MCQ-27 (Medical Ethics and Professionalism) Dr RR Baliga's 'Got Knowledge Doc' PodKasts for Physicians derived from chapter Medical Ethics and Professionalism in Baliga's Textbook of Internal Medicine with 1480 MCQs www.MasterMedFacts.com   by C.Ronald MacKenzie, MD Professor of Clinical Medicine & Medical Ethics Weill Medical College of Cornell University

MCQ-26 (Medical Ethics and Professionalism) Dr RR Baliga's 'Got Knowledge Doc' PodKasts for Physicians derived from chapter Medical Ethics and Professionalism in Baliga's Textbook of Internal Medicine with 1480 MCQs www.MasterMedFacts.com   by C.Ronald MacKenzie, MD Professor of Clinical Medicine & Medical Ethics Weill Medical College of Cornell University

MCQ-25 (Medical Ethics and Professionalism) Dr RR Baliga's 'Got Knowledge Doc' PodKasts for Physicians derived from chapter Medical Ethics and Professionalism in Baliga's Textbook of Internal Medicine with 1480 MCQs www.MasterMedFacts.com   by C.Ronald MacKenzie, MD Professor of Clinical Medicine & Medical Ethics Weill Medical College of Cornell University

MCQ-24 (Medical Ethics and Professionalism) Dr RR Baliga's 'Got Knowledge Doc' PodKasts for Physicians derived from chapter Medical Ethics and Professionalism in Baliga's Textbook of Internal Medicine with 1480 MCQs www.MasterMedFacts.com   by C.Ronald MacKenzie, MD Professor of Clinical Medicine & Medical Ethics Weill Medical College of Cornell University

MCQ-23 (Medical Ethics and Professionalism) Dr RR Baliga's 'Got Knowledge Doc' PodKasts for Physicians derived from chapter Medical Ethics and Professionalism in Baliga's Textbook of Internal Medicine with 1480 MCQs www.MasterMedFacts.com   by C.Ronald MacKenzie, MD Professor of Clinical Medicine & Medical Ethics Weill Medical College of Cornell University

MCQ-22 (Medical Ethics and Professionalism) Dr RR Baliga's 'Got Knowledge Doc' PodKasts for Physicians derived from chapter Medical Ethics and Professionalism in Baliga's Textbook of Internal Medicine with 1480 MCQs www.MasterMedFacts.com   by C.Ronald MacKenzie, MD Professor of Clinical Medicine & Medical Ethics Weill Medical College of Cornell University

MCQ-21 (Medical Ethics and Professionalism) Dr RR Baliga's 'Got Knowledge Doc' PodKasts for Physicians derived from chapter Medical Ethics and Professionalism in Baliga's Textbook of Internal Medicine with 1480 MCQs www.MasterMedFacts.com   by C.Ronald MacKenzie, MD Professor of Clinical Medicine & Medical Ethics Weill Medical College of Cornell University

AlexMerced.comSupport the show (http://www.patreon.com/alexmerced)

Utilitarian Ethics vs. Deontological Ethics – My Perspective AlexMerced.com

Utilitarian Ethics vs. Deontological Ethics – My Perspective AlexMerced.com

Utilitarian Ethics vs. Deontological Ethics – My Perspective AlexMerced.com

Utilitarian Ethics vs. Deontological Ethics – My Perspective AlexMerced.com

Utilitarian Ethics vs. Deontological Ethics – My Perspective AlexMerced.com

Utilitarian Ethics vs. Deontological Ethics – My Perspective AlexMerced.com

Utilitarian Ethics vs. Deontological Ethics – My Perspective AlexMerced.com

Utilitarian Ethics vs. Deontological Ethics – My Perspective AlexMerced.com

Utilitarian Ethics vs. Deontological Ethics – My Perspective AlexMerced.com

Utilitarian Ethics vs. Deontological Ethics – My Perspective AlexMerced.com

Utilitarian Ethics vs. Deontological Ethics – My Perspective AlexMerced.com

Utilitarian Ethics vs. Deontological Ethics - My Perspective --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/alexmerced/support

Utilitarian Ethics vs. Deontological Ethics – My Perspective AlexMerced.com

It's probably fair to say that the player characters in Grand Theft Auto aren't the best people, but how do we establish this? What should compel them to be better? And shouldn't we do more to be nice to fictional characters?Find me on Twitter: @overthinkery1 (and The Well-Red Mage @TheWellRedMage)Discuss Philosophiraga on Reddit at The Well-Reddit PageCheck out more Magely content at TheWellRedMage.comSupport the show with a monthly pledge of any amount on Patreon to receive great boons and much loveSupport the show (http://patreon.com/thewellredmage)

Does the end justify the means? Should the outcome matter more than the process? In this episode, we go over two ethical stances, deontological and consequentialist, and we compare the pros and cons of both. I reveal which one I'd rather use on a daily basis (not case-by-case for simplicity), and I invite listeners to let me know what they think of both stances and where they'd stand if they could only pick one. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/indomaudible/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/indomaudible/support

Hey friends, show notes guy here. This one's a feels show so I'm gonna play it straight. Aron Eisenberg, the actor who played Nog on DS9, passed away recently. He was a beloved member of the Star Trek community and we wanted to do a tribute episode to pay our respects. So, we brought on the perfect person to guide us through, Callie Wright. Besides being an amazing podcaster, Callie is very active in the Star Trek community and brings with her a wealth of Star Trek background stories. We cover the first episode where Nog really gets to shine, season 3 episode 14, Heart of Stone. Given his love for duty, it felt right to use this story to introduce the Deontological theory of ethics, something we'll of course develop in further episodes. We hope you pour yourself a tall glass of root bear and enjoy a bit of Nog glory. Also, Callie mentions a charity at the end of the episode, which has since stopped accepting donations. I didn't want you to think we'd just left it out. Here's the link if you're interested: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-aron-fight-to-right-this-wrong?fbclid=IwAR3XgaPcrBTRPTTvbFCyTOqb6WyQebrjxGsqNoUQelDukNePxrDuAuiowHY Callie's Show: http://www.queersplaining.com/author/callie/ Deontology: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/ Support us at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/0G  Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/0gPhilosophy Join our Facebook discussion group (make sure to answer the questions to join): https://www.facebook.com/groups/985828008244018/  Email us at: philosophersinspace@gmail.com If you have time, please write us a review on iTunes. It really really helps. Please and thank you! Sibling shows: Serious Inquiries Only: https://seriouspod.com/ Opening Arguments: https://openargs.com/  Embrace the Void: https://voidpod.com/ Editing by Brian Ziegenhagen, check out his pod: http://youarehere.libsyn.com/s02e02-rex-manning-day?fbclid=IwAR2L2_YIJvQpcw0nx6nTSfz0GmyJ1DtWsF--vvdI9W1ug3XW7IAtU6dQ36s Recent appearances: Aaron and Thomas each got their own episodes of GAM. Lots of bonus content! https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/scathing-atheist/god-awful-movies/e/64118049 https://www.stitcher.com/s?eid=64281252  CONTENT PREVIEW: The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas and Distribution Ethics  

This is a long ride. How does shitting on UBI and a jobs guarantee lead to the core divide between deontological anarchists and consequentialist libertarians???? Try our cebiche!

What if you told the truth every single time you were presented with the opportunity? In this episode, Josh navigates the ins and outs of a deontological framework, and explains how to use it properly in a Lincoln Douglas Debate case.    Email us with Questions and Comments: whatstheres@gmail.com Instagram: @whatstheres_ Twitter: @whatstheres_ Facebook: @TheHerringReview

Types of Mistakes I Make notes: https://www.thisisinsider.com/circles-different-colors-optical-illusion-2018-7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_Were_Made_(But_Not_by_Me) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan:_The_Impact_of_the_Highly_Improbable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics

How do we identify the different ethical theories? The Teleological is an ends or purpose based ethics. The ends justify the means. What does ethics look like if only defined by the goal? Consider that pure teleology produces monsters. Deontological is rule-based ethics and includes the view of Kant, religion, cults, or politics and Nihilism, atheism, or anarchism. What does ethics look like if only defined by law? If our ethical system is only about law, than it would be best fulfilled by a robot. With a Deontological ethic we only end up with machines. What does ethics look like if only defined by what kind of people we are? Lovingness with no law to guide it and no sense of what purpose is, will fall apart into doing nothing or doing whatever we want.

Dr. John Frame teaches at RTS on Pastoral and Social Ethics.

Professor Angie Hobbs is Professor of the Public Understanding of Philosophy at the University of Sheffield. She created the UK's first Senior Fellow in the Public Understanding of Philosophy in 2009 and is the Honorary Patron of The Philosophy Foundation.

Deontological ethical reasoning focuses upon the intent behind an action, and on limits to the ways in which we may acceptably treat others. Conversely, moral or ethical rights regard the limits to the ways in which we may acceptably be treated. Dr Jeremy St John looks at the theories of Deontology and Rights-based ethics, and discusses their application to organisational decision making and business practices. Find out more about the online Masters of Business Administration at http://online.latrobe.edu.au Copyright 2014 La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

What is deontological ethics / deontology? Is duty a principle to determine if something is ethical? What is the basis of deontological ethics?