mkm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:07 am I agree with you said, but it wasn't my question. I know that consequentialism and deontology differ, that's why I proposed a particular deontological system with the rule (maxim?) "maximizing good outcomes". In my view that way you frame deontological system to be basically the consequentialism. brimstoneSalad identified the point of my question well (though still said that your explanation is ok, while it kind of missed the point), pointing out that such system may not be "proper" deontological one. Is it so?
Sorry, I kind of rambled in bit in that response. In terms of such a maxim “maximize goodness of outcomes,” I don’t think Kant would’ve accepted this, given that what it means to achieve the “greatest good” in each situation requires detailed evaluation of the consequences, which deontology vehemently rejects. Categorical imperatives denote unconditional requirement and are designed to be ends in themselves. Imperatives generally command that we make specific moral decisions that do not vary according to the situation or context. However, the maxim you proposed would involve any number of means taken to reach its end, each of which would absolutely vary according the situation. Said maxim is not designed to be an end in itself; it’s designed to be a means to an end, and thus would not be a valid maxim.
I don’t think any ends-based maxim can work within a deontological framework. However, “maximize goodness of outcomes” would work fine within the the framework of rule-consequentialism.
The benefits outweigh the harm when the outcome results in the greatest amount of well-being (and least amount of suffering) that is practicable.
Harms can’t all be perfectly quantified, like trying to figure out whether hurting your or my feelings leads to more overall harm.
However, in the scenario you’ve provided, if person A gets pleasure from listening to music at high volumes, but person B values silence and is afflicted with discomfort, the moral decision would be to simply close the windows or utilize earphones. Thus, person A still gets pleasure from his loud music, and person B gets pleasure from silence. i.e., well-being has been maximized.
In a similar scenario; let’s say person A cannot afford to purchase earphones. The most rational decision would simply be to turn the music down. It may negatively the amount of pleasure he receives, but the benefits outweighs the harm because person B will be “less harmed” by a quieter noise. This scenario will still lead to a “greater good.”