Consider these two options:

1) You are a time traveler with perfect knowledge of what happens if Hitler lives; you are transported to 1895 and see Hitler as a child, you have a gun and one bullet...

2) You are a sniper with the French resistance in 1940; you see Hitler in Paris and can easily take the shot doing your duty, however you know the reprisals on the French people will be severe...

1) is consequentialism, one child's life vs many lives saved
2) is deontology, a moral duty though many will suffer

You just have to save Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife from being assassinated preventing the outbreak of World War I.

I think that's the best moral answer.

Now I'm going back to bed.

See:

The trolley dilemma

The question of the many vs the few.

There is another version of a doctor who has one healthy patient and five patients each needing a different organ transplant. Each of the five are good, upstanding people with families, the one has a long criminal history, no family, will not be missed.

Does the doctor arrange the death of one to harvest the organs so five may live?

It’s not a simple question.

And in the Maine election (which is what this poll is about), just one of the many not-so-simple questions that must be contemplated is, do we support a seriously flawed candidate who will block Trump’s agenda and nominees in order to unseat a Republican who enables the trampling of the rights of so many, as well as voting to confirm judges and cabinet members who also trample the rights of millions?

but one of philosophy. It is not meant to be simple (the poll is simple-this or that, the choice is not). Both represent a compromise, the question being do we compromise our principles on the front end or the back end? What risks are we making with our choice?

Your choice is framed with black or white simplicity, without the nuance or complexity of the real world.

Also not defined: which act is the “moral” one?

Is it rejecting a seriously flawed candidate knowing the consequences will be that his opponent will go on to enable the most corrupt and harmful administration in history?

Or is the moral choice electing a seriously flawed candidate, indirectly rewarding his unacceptable behaviours, but obstructing the predictable, contemptible actions of the Trump administration for the next two years?

The questions you pose in the post above are more appropriate, but unsuitable for a poll.

Platner has been accused of behavior (borderline violence towards women) that, quite frankly, would earn visceral condemnation were he not running for the Senate.

I've had someone try to brush that off as "relationships can get physical without it descending to abuse", which struck me as a very obvious cope. Leaving marks on someone with your hands, pushing them into a room and keeping them there against their will... those are abusive behaviors and trying to argue otherwise is wildly disingenuous. The former is battery, the latter could be false imprisonment or hell, even kidnapping.

So as I see it the question is, do our values about how women (and people in general) should be treated hold firm and apply in all cases or do we set those values aside in service of a political agenda, namely control of the Senate? If we excuse or ignore or minimize these behaviors in Platner in the name of political expedience I feel like that undermines our claim to take these values seriously.

The next time a Republican candidate is accused of putting hands on people the criticism of that behavior by those who defended Platner are going to ring just a wee bit hollow from where I'm standing.

That's just how I view this and my opinion is worth absolutely nothing since I don't vote in Maine. I just find it disheartening that so many people are shrugging off these very, very problematic behaviors without a backward glance when they'd be roundly condemning him if he were some random schmoe and not a Senate candidate.

Are coming from a woman who was head of a group attacking the woman who reported clearly criminal sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh.

And I get the "tit for tat" impulse given that Kavanaugh was accused of straight-up sexual assault and still ended up on the bench.

But just because the GOP brushed aside or ignored that kind of behavior isn't an indication that we should do likewise with other problematic behavior.

And I get that the stakes are higher than one person and their behavior. I do. Control of the Senate means defanging Trump for the remainder of his term.

I just don't like the slippery values aspect of it, that's all.

The rest I have seen have either said he was a “bad boyfriend” or an OK guy.

Of which i am well aware. I have a friend with a degree in philosophy and I haven't killed him for 20 years so I suppose I should choose deontology.

The rest gets to the crux of the question and the two philosophies.

There are few absolutes and neither is at 100% of the time thing.

Sometimes the end does justify the means, sometimes the "moral" choice isn't the best choice.

The world is more complicated than a binary choice.

I try to make the moral choice most of the time.

I would kill Baby Hitler in his crib.

I would vote for Mills on June 9 if I lived in Maine.

I think the appeal of a binary choice is that it offers clarity, but politics rarely operates in such black-and-white terms. The real challenge, I believe, isn't picking a side between these two frameworks, but having the discernment to navigate the 'shades of gray.'

We face this constantly --- like when we have to weigh the importance of electoral outcomes against the need for personal or party integrity. It’s rarely about boasting about which 'side' we chose, but about navigating the difficulty of the choice itself.

In a binary poll like this one, specifically regarding "Consequentialism vs. Deontology" it's almost never an abstract academic exercises. I wonder if this poll is intended to serve as a "litmus test" to categorize the users here (or at least the ones who respond.)

On its face, "Consequentialism" is often used to justify "lesser-evil" voting or pragmatic alliances with compromised figures... and "Deontology" is often used to justify ideological purity or "refusing to vote for the system" regardless of the electoral outcome.

The subtext appears to be this: "Are you willing to overlook personal moral failings to achieve a political end?" And in that regard, this poll is could also be viewed as one that wants to promote a debate on political pragmatism versus moral absolutism.

One can view it as a litmus test of one's self. I do not care which answer anyone chooses as there are pluses and minuses to both. It is designed to make people think.

In the current election we are seeing a consequentialist argument for a candidate put forth and supported/opposed by many.
In the 2024 election we saw a deontologist perspective by those who could not support Harris over an issue and voted Trump or refused to vote. That position was also supported/opposed here by many.

... with regard to both Harris and Hillary. With regard to this poll being a litmus test... since DU polls (especially binary ones) my view is that it's less of a "test for one's self" (eg: designed to help someone to privately evaluate their own feelings on the matter) and instead (since the "view" link shows how everyone voted) it becomes a defacto litmus test to see how people label themselves.

That said, the public aspect of it may, however, skew the results since people may feel one way, but vote in another way because it "looks good" for their forum creds. I do think it was an interesting question and I'm enjoying watching the results of the poll... and seeing who voted how... as well as the discussion herein.

Thanks!

Stewie and Brian went back in time to stop 9/11. However, with nothing to run on, Bush starts Civil War 2 and nukes fly.

Moral of the story: Even if you are going back in time to stop one of the worse tragedies in human history, the results might end up even worse.

I prefer the "moral" path. But consequences MUST be considered, IMO.

Generally speaking I would opt for morally correct, but depending on circumstances I could go for end justifies means.
The Virginia redistricting plan I voted for, though it was not morally correct except as a counter- redistricting scheme.
If you had added a fourth response 'depends on the issue' I bet would've won 90%.
Or 'generally' moralistic or Machiavellian.
Cheers Sarisataka. Did you post on gun boards? Long time no see.

I believe everyone would pick "it depends"
Machiavelli is considered the source of consequentialism although he never said "the end justifies the means"
TBF very few people will 100% be one or the other (and there are many subcategories in each general philosophy)
I was first in the good ol'days of the gungeon but am still around asking uncomfortable questions.

I think my default is deontology, but a complex world with imperfect context will often leave us at consequentialist crossroads.

I'm currently watching that story with the influencer couple who terminated a pregnancy after the fetus was found to have trisomy 21. Now, there are plenty of people who will say they would never, that it's wrong, what terrible people they are. But let's be honest. Given privacy laws, HIPAA, etc. If they know ironclad no one would find out, how many of those people who are publicly declaring the moral position would make a similar choice when facing those circumstances themselves?

So, I think this is one of those instances where people know they're being polled, they'll say they would do the moral thing, but when the chips are down, well, it's situational.

"It's different when I do it" is practically the unofficial slogan of America.

My answer is, I strive for the deontological, but there are moments in my life where I lose patience, am feeling spiteful, am put in a no-win situation, etc., and it's just "Fuck it. If this is what the universe is giving me to work with, so be it."

Establish an acceptable floor for moral behavior and do not tolerate anything beneath it. With this condition established, behave roughly according to consequentialist principles.

What is the acceptable floor of moral behavior?

Reality is a bit more multidimensional.

As an adult most of my moral philosophy is focused inward rather than outward. I'd say for me moral behavior involves being aware of the emotional states of others and respecting opinion. But thats off the cuff.

It is a really interesting question.

Our imperfect world often requires compromise. Hopefully people give serious thoughts to what they are willing to compromise on and when.

Regarding ethics, the two models you presented are really interesting counterpoints for one another. Bentham and Mills v. Kant.

Consequentialism is appealing because it is so easy. Deontology is appealing because it is so beautiful.

Collins has sat and watched Krasnov commit multiple immoral acts and said nothing. And, then voted with him, despite all his rape, corruption, murder, kidnapping, and larceny.

Platner has been accused of past physical violence, which he denies, and without clear proof of the accusation.

If this is a binary choice and I had a vote, I think I take my chance with Platner. I damn sure don’t want someone I know is going to continue to side with a monster.