Do we ever regulate acts for themselves? I can see that we regulate acts that, as things turn out, don't have any consequences (eg attempted murder) but do we ever regulate acts for themselves regardless of how they might effect others? What would you have in mind? - ThreadSky

spinninghugo.bsky.social • 100 days ago

Do we ever regulate acts for themselves? I can see that we regulate acts that, as things turn out, don't have any consequences (eg attempted murder) but do we ever regulate acts for themselves regardless of how they might effect others? What would you have in mind?

Comments

michaelpforan.bsky.social•100 days ago

The effect on another can be a part of the act itself. Killing is an act that involves an effect on another and the act of killing is itself what is regulated regardless of what consequences it produces. I’d say the default is that we don’t regulate purely based on consequences.

spinninghugo.bsky.social•100 days ago

Unsure, I am no philosopher of action.

Whilst we do regulate actions that could have had consequences for others but did not (eg attempted murder) we don't (now?) regulate actions themselves without more ado, we regulate because of their actual or possible consequences for others.

michaelpforan.bsky.social•100 days ago

For example, we prohibit torture regardless of whether the act of torture produces good or bad consequence overall. Any good consequences can’t override the fact that the act of torture is itself what is prohibited. It’s deontic in nature.

matthewmorris.bsky.social•100 days ago

There’s a school of thought (eg Parfit) that *rule* consequentialism can generally be usefully applied to argue against things like torture: e.g. can still invoke outcomes, just not in an *act* consequentialist fashion. And practically, there are exceptions even so: we tortured German spies in WW2.

michaelpforan.bsky.social•100 days ago

Yes but that’s just explaining *why* you would regulate the act of torturing not *whether* you are regulating the act qua act or the act only if it produces X consequences. The former is focused on the act itself the latter on the consequences of the act.

matthewmorris.bsky.social•100 days ago

Fine, when you said “I’d say the default is that we don’t regulate purely based on consequences”, I took that to be about the “why”’rather than the “whether” of the regulation itself. I agree that the regulation arising from a rule-consequentialist “why” should have a deontic character to it!

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply