A threshold deontologist is someone who holds a philosophical view combining elements of deontology (duty-based ethics) and consequentialism (outcome-based ethics).
This position asserts that there are absolute moral rules (deontological duties) that must never be violated, up to a certain point or "threshold."
Core Concepts
1. The Deontological Phase (Below the Threshold)
In most everyday moral situations, the threshold deontologist acts as a pure deontologist:
Absolute Duties: They believe in firm moral rules, such as "Do not lie," "Do not steal," and, most importantly, "Do not intentionally kill an innocent person."
Non-Negotiable: These duties apply regardless of the consequences.
4 For example, if telling a small lie would prevent a minor inconvenience, the deontologist still must not lie. The act itself is inherently wrong.
2. The Consequentialist Phase (Above the Threshold)
The defining feature of this view is the threshold, which, once crossed, switches the ethical framework:
The Threshold: This is the point at which the potential consequences of adhering to the deontological rule become so catastrophic that they override the absolute duty.
The Switch: When the consequences cross this line (e.g., if upholding the rule means the death of thousands of innocent people), the agent must abandon the duty and calculate which action leads to the best overall outcome (i.e., they become a consequentialist).
3. The Unspecified Threshold
A major challenge for this view is defining the threshold precisely.
The exact point is rarely quantified (e.g., "when 500 lives are at stake").
Instead, it's typically described as an extreme or catastrophic situation where the cost of maintaining the deontological rule is an overwhelming disaster.
Example: The Ticking Time Bomb Scenario
This ethical dilemma is often used to illustrate the threshold:
| Situation | Pure Deontology | Pure Consequentialism | Threshold Deontology |
| A Terrorist has planted a bomb. Torturing him is the only way to find out where it is. | Do not torture. The act of torture is inherently wrong (a violation of duty), regardless of the consequences. | Torture the terrorist. The action is justified because saving hundreds of lives (the consequence) outweighs the suffering of one person. | Torture the terrorist. While torture is normally a prohibited act, the potential death of hundreds of people crosses the catastrophic threshold, making the utilitarian calculation mandatory. |
Contrast with Other Views
| View | Primary Focus | Allows Rule Violation? |
| Pure Deontology | The act itself (Duty/Rule) | No (Duties are absolute, regardless of consequences). |
| Pure Consequentialism | The outcome (Consequences) | Yes (Any act is justified if it produces the best overall result). |
| Threshold Deontology | The act/outcome balance | Yes, but only when the consequences are catastrophic (above the threshold). |
Threshold deontology is essentially an attempt to create a common-sense ethical system that honors deeply held moral convictions (duties) while avoiding the morally unacceptable paralysis that pure deontology faces in extreme emergency situations.A threshold deontologist is an ethicist who holds a moral view that attempts to reconcile deontology (duty-based ethics) with consequentialism (outcome-based ethics).
This position asserts that moral duties, such as "Do not lie" or "Do not intentionally kill," are absolute and must be followed up to a certain point or "threshold."
The Two Phases of the Threshold
1. The Deontological Phase (Below the Threshold)
In most normal circumstances, the threshold deontologist behaves like a pure deontologist. They believe in constraints on action that are independent of the outcome.
Focus on the Act: Certain acts, like intentionally killing an innocent person, are inherently wrong.
8 Rule Priority: Moral rules are prioritized over maximizing good consequences.
9 For example, it would be wrong to frame an innocent person for a crime, even if doing so would prevent minor rioting.
2. The Consequentialist Phase (Above the Threshold)
The defining feature of this view is the switch in moral reasoning when the potential harm becomes overwhelmingly severe.
The Switch: When the consequences of obeying the rule reach a catastrophic level (e.g., millions of lives are at stake, or the survival of a society is threatened), the deontological constraint is lifted.
Focus on the Outcome: The moral agent then shifts to a consequentialist framework, choosing the action that minimizes harm or maximizes utility, even if it involves violating a severe moral duty.
The Problem of the Threshold
A key challenge for this view is that the threshold is rarely defined precisely. It is typically described vaguely as an "extreme," "imminent," or "unthinkable" disaster, which leaves the point of the switch ambiguous and subject to subjective interpretation.
Illustrative Example
Consider a scenario where the only way to stop a weapon of mass destruction from detonating in a major city is to target and destroy the single car containing the terrorist, which will also kill his completely innocent child passenger.
| Ethical View | Decision on Targeting the Car | Rationale |
| Pure Deontology | Do not target. | Intentionally killing an innocent person (the child) is an absolute, non-negotiable moral violation, regardless of the consequences. |
| Pure Consequentialism | Target the car. | The consequences are clear: sacrificing one life (the child) saves millions. The act is justified by the best outcome. |
| Threshold Deontology | Target the car. | While intentionally killing an innocent is normally forbidden, the potential death of millions is considered a catastrophic event that crosses the threshold, overriding the deontological constraint and making the consequentialist calculation mandatory. |
No comments:
Post a Comment