A Defense of Deontological Constraints

How to be a Nonconsequentialist: A Defense of Deontological Constraints Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Christa M. Johnson, B.A. Graduate Program in Philosophy The Ohio State University 2018 Dissertation Committee: Justin D’Arms, Co-advisor Piers Turner, Co-advisor Donald Hubin Tristram McPherson Copyright by Christa M. Johnson 2018 Abstract I propose and defend a fully-relative nonconsequentialist normative moral theory, MATRC (pronounced, may-trick), that I argue is able to stave off both paradox and triviality, something several initially plausible versions of nonconsequentialism have failed to do. On my view, Constraints are both Agent and Time Relative. For example, while I certainly have moral reason to prevent you from killing innocent people, I am constrained from killing an innocent person in service of those reasons. Moreover, I am constrained from infringing a constraint now, just to prevent some future constraint infringement. So, on my view, there are moral constraints in virtue of which I, myself, cannot, at the present moment, permissibly perform certain actions, such as killing innocent persons, even if doing so would maximize the good. But, I argue that these constraints are moderate, rather than absolute (the “M” in MATRC). Absolute views maintain that constraint infringements are morally impermissible in all cases. However, I argue that in certain cases, such as to save a million people, constraint infringements are permissible. In order to pave the way for MATRC, I begin by dispelling the charge of triviality, which comes from what has been dubbed the “Consequentializing Project”. This is the view that all normative moral theories can be “turned into” act consequentialist views. Accordingly, a surgeon is prohibited from harvesting the organs of ii an innocent person to save five others not due to a constraint, but rather because saving the five results in a worse world relative to the surgeon. I argue that even if we can consequentialize, we ought not to insofar as the complications that arise when consequentializing ultimately negate the theoretical benefits, and indeed, result in a number of theoretical costs. The charge of paradox traditionally comes from the so-called Paradox of Deontology. It seems whatever motivation a moral theorist has for adhering to constraints, we should be permitted to harm individuals when it would prevent a higher number of similar harms. A second challenge, I argue, comes from a hitherto underappreciated paradox, what I dub the intra-personal paradox of deontology. In these cases, an agent is faced with infringing a single constraint in order to minimize her own constraint infringements. After rejecting the view that the agent may perform such an infringement, I show how MATRC’s agent- and time-relativity both exemplifies the underlying motivations for constraints while successfully responding to both the inter- and intra-personal paradoxes of deontology. Finally, turning to the moderate nature of constraints, I work to show that moderate constraints are both coherent and justified. I argue that while respect for persons requires that agents not perform certain actions, one must also acknowledge those that may benefit from a constraint infringement. This acknowledgement provides the motivation for thresholds. Once a threshold has been met, however, I argue that an agent must continue to show respect for the rights holder through certain moral emotions. With moderate deontology understood, I turn to the question of where these thresholds might be, and develop a novel framework. iii Dedication Dedicated to my parents who never once questioned my decision to pursue philosophy and to my wife who graciously puts up with it. iv Acknowledgements They say it takes a village. This dissertation certainly provides evidence for that claim. I have three advisors and five committee members to thank, in addition to the countless other colleagues, friends, and family members that made all of this finally come to fruition. First, to Tim Schroeder, my first advisor and mentor, this project would have never gotten off the ground if it were not for your guidance. You saw me through the beginnings of two completely different projects and were invaluable in helping me to navigate philosophical problems and prepare for the academic world. Piers Turner, co- advisor number two, I cannot begin to thank you for the countless pep talks and the grace you showed in helping me to transition my projects and my committee. Importantly, my dissertation and my philosophical work in general would not be what it is today without the countless discussions and general pushes you gave me over the years. Justin D’Arms, the other half of my co-advising team, I owe you a debt of gratitude for just making the time over and over again. I feel that I have only had a taste this semester of the sheer number of tasks that you dealt with the entirety of my dissertating years. Yet, you never failed to give me the feedback and challenges that I needed to raise my thinking and my writing to the next level. I threw more than a few bad ideas your way, and without fail, you pushed me to dig deeper, to work harder, and this is the result. v To Don Hubin, my consequentialist nemesis, my ethics center boss, my committee member, and friend, thank you for all of your support, in every facet of my graduate career over the years. To Tristram McPherson, thank you for stepping in late and treating this work as if I was your student all along. You always know how to challenge my work in new ways, and I am ever grateful for your kindness. There are others in the department to thank as well. To Sigrún Svavarsdóttir and Richard Samuels, thank you for supporting me in my first defense. To Abe Roth, from whom I took many classes, thank you for all you taught me, and for always remaining open to my views, even when they critiqued your own. To William Taschek, whose feedback in my first graduate seminar still shapes my writing today. And to the Lisa’s, Shabel and Downing, for being an inspiration for myself and the other women in the department. I also would not be where I am today without the support of my fellow graduate students in the department. To my cohort, that has been supportive of each of our endeavors, both in and out of academia, thank you for the drinks, the conversation, and the friendship. To my dear friends ahead of me, you provided the path and mentorship to keep me going. And to those who came after, I can assure you, it gets better. Although they did not aide me in finishing this dissertation in a timely manner, I’d also like to thank the departments at Denison University and Oberlin College for giving me the opportunity to get my feet wet in academia, while still pursuing my PhD. Through these experiences, I have been able to learn to balance teaching and research in a way that will be invaluable to my future. vi To my parents, from what I understand from my students, most parents are not so thrilled when they find out their student wants to major in philosophy, much less pursue it as a career. But, throughout my life, you have never once questioned a single goal of mine. You have supported me through countless endeavors, and I cannot begin to express what that has meant to me over the years. To my siblings, to my nieces and nephew, and to my friends from all stages of life, you all have provided so much joy over the years, and it has never failed to keep me going. Finally, to my wife, Jenn, I cannot imagine getting through the past few years without your support. My graduate career has been a whirlwind of different projects, mentors, and jobs. We have lived apart, and together, and apart again, all while both completing dissertations and transitioning to new job opportunities. You are my rock. And, I just would not be where I am today without you. You listened to more stressed out rants in the past few years than anyone should have to in a lifetime. You always believed in me, even when I felt like this would never come together. And, you have brought me more joy than I can begin to express. I am not sure that I can ever sufficiently show my appreciation for all that you are, so I hope you will settle for a note in my dissertation and lifetime of thank you’s to come. vii Vita 2005………………………………Bishop Eustace Preparatory School 2009………………………………B.S. Philosophy, Ursinus College 2010 – 2011………………………University Fellow, The Ohio State University 2011 – 2017………………………Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Philosophy, The Ohio State University 2014 – 2015………………………Visiting Instructor, Department of Philosophy, Denison University 2016………………………………Graduate Administrative Associate, Department of Philosophy, The Ohio State University 2013 – present……………………Graduate Administrative Associate, Center for Ethics and Human Values, The Ohio State University 2017 – present……………………Visiting Instructor, Department of Philosophy, Oberlin College Fields of Study Major Field: Philosophy viii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. v Vita ..................................................................................................................................

Load more