Lets establish some assumptions. Common sense morality is mildly deontological – people won’t kill another to save two, but they would if it saves the world. The ends justify the means only if they’re much greater ends than means.
The principle becomes one of much milder deontology when we’re talking about a non-action rather than an action. So fewer people would kill a sick person in order to distribute his organs to save five people, than people who would not save a sick person in order to distribute his organs to save five people. If a train is going to hit 5 people some would pull the lever to divert the train into hitting 1 person. But virtually nobody would pull the lever if the train is going to hit 1 person so that it hits 5. They’re the exact same outcome, but when actions cause the damage it is more likely to be morally impermissible.
Here’s how I think the principle of mild deontology plays out in the public policy debate.
Some people analyze government like it is already there. If the FDA is banning a drug which saves 5 lives, but has side effects that kills 1, then moral intuitions will flare up at the thought of stopping the FDA. You’re pulling the lever which trades 1 life for 5, and that is morally outrageous. Others don’t think about it that way. Their minds begin with the state of nature and then build their policy views from the ground up. Should we enact an FDA which bans a drug which saves 5 lives but has side effects that kills 1? Of course not! You’re pulling the lever which trades 5 lives for 1.
The extra slack between utilitarianism and mild deontology can work in either direction depending on how you think about it.
In the last example, we were looking at a government which already exists like it already exists, which is appropriate. But some people analyze government policy like it already exists even when it doesn’t. Single payer health care will no doubt save some lives, but some people think about it like we already have single payer and eliminating it will kill people. Others see single payer as the action which would not only have to prove that the benefits outweigh the costs, but that the benefits outweigh the costs by a lot.
The slack between mild deontology and utilitarianism can be used to advocate either the pro-government or anti-government side either appropriately or inappropriately. It is appropriate only because it accurately applies the moral principle, not because the moral principle is in fact correct. I’m not a believer in moral intuitionism, and so I’m not a believer in mild deontology. Its arbitrariness goes against something that happens to be another commonsense moral principle called integrity – concern for consistency.
But I do share these common-sense moral principles, whether they are right or wrong, and I think they play a part in the policy conclusions we get to. It is not an all-in-all explanation of the difference in policy views because how mild each person’s deontology will go differs from person to person. At the margin, logically speaking, it should move people in one direction or the other depending on how they think about that policy.
I’m very curious how Michael Huemer would respond to the charge that he has to show that anarchy clearly and greatly outweighs the benefits of government, rather than the other way around. Since after all, we don’t already have anarchy.
Or how Bryan Caplan would respond to the charge that open boarders has to clearly and greatly outweigh the benefits of immigration restrictions. Since after all, we don’t already have open boarders.
I hope that either one of them could talk me out of it, since it is a conclusion I don’t prefer.
