The terms 'consequentialism' and 'deontology' (and 'consequentialist', 'deontological', 'deontic' etc.) crop up a lot in EA discussions. For me, these technical terms usually muddle rather than clarify the conversation.

Full post below, but here's a summary of what I'm getting at:

1. We should rarely bring 'consequentialism' or 'deontology' into discussions
2. Words like 'deontological' can usually be removed altogether
3. Words like 'consequentialism' can usually be replaced by 'consequences' or 'impact'

This could go a small way towards clearer and more accessible EA discourse.

Note: I don't have an academic background in philosophy and I mostly see EA discussions in passing, so please let me know if I've got the wrong end of the stick here!

Ideas like 'consequentialism' and 'deontology' are attempts to ground ethics. That is, they are more like answers to "what is the fundamental nature of reality?" (i.e. metaphysics) than answers to questions like "what are appealing heuristics for living an ethical life^[1]?".

Failing to make this distinction creates confused discussions. In priority order, here are three common ways this happens:

1. The "80% utilitarian"

Consequentialism and deontology are incompatible theories — they can't be combined without losing what's central to each.

EA discussions are typically framed in consequentialist terms: "We should do X because it leads to the outcomes that we like". This can be explicit or implicit, but within this frame, it doesn't makes sense to bring 'deontology' to the table.

Here are some ways this happens:

• "The best way to operate is to be 80% utilitarian and 20% deontologist."
• "The consequentialist approach would be XYZ, but we should actually be a bit deontological and make sure we never do ABC, since ABC could lead to really bad consequences."

These examples treat 'consequentialism' and 'deontology' as heuristics in service of our conception of an ethical life. But these ideas are not heuristics, and if we want to talk about taking prudent actions then there are clearer ways to do so:

• "We should be utilitarians who abide by society's core norms"
• "XYZ is the best approach but it's very important that we avoid ABC since it could lead to really bad consequences"

2. Rules = Deontology

We might associate deontology with rules, but simply being related to rules doesn’t make a thing ‘deontological’. 

This often happens in discussions that are framed in consequentialist terms, where someone thinks rules are nevertheless important:

• “Person A did something deontologically bad”
• “Person B broke deontological norms”
• “Utilitarians should act within deontological constraints” 

Words like 'constraints' and 'norms' already connote 'rules', so we can just stick to everyday language:

• "Person A  did [just say what they did and it will be clear what rule they violated]"
• "Person B broke important norms"
• "Utilitarians should act within constraints"

3. Consequences = Consequentialism

Consequentialism takes 'consequences'^[1] to be what's ultimately important, while everyone across the board takes consequences to be very important. 

For most practical discussions, 'caring about consequences' is what's relevant. We shouldn't conflate this with 'consequentialism':

• "EA non-profit founders should be strongly committed to consequentialism" → "EA non-profit founders should be strongly committed to having the most impact"
• "If we care about consequentialism then we should do XYZ" → "If we care about consequences then we should do XYZ"

"Consequences = Consequentialism" unnecessarily narrows the scope of our points and the audience they might resonate with. 

Technical terminology has an important place in technical discussions, but the vast majority of EA discussions concern concrete practical matters. 

Clarity of thought and accessibility of ideas are important here, and these are best served by everyday language and common-sense terminology.

Thank you for reading, and let me know what you think!

1. ^{^}

   (however conceived)