In politics I believe it is common to talk of political pragmatists vs political ideologues.  What is less common is to talk about political consequentialists vs political deontologists. The two “vs” seem to overlap, but there are differences. The key difference is that political consequentialists and political deontologists make their decisions from an ethical viewpoint.

I was thinking of political ethics this week when there was a discussion around whether or not the Democratic Party in the U.S. should accept money from Elon Musk. As someone who is more of a political consequentialist, I thought: of course they should take his money, especially because it could help them win control of the U.S. government and for starters they could reverse the changes he has done. Then I read others who argued they would not take money “from a guy who does a Hitler salute” (i.e. is evil). I get that argument: they think they have a duty to never ally with someone as bad as Musk, and they must believe they can get money from elsewhere that does not conflict with their political duties.

There are pros and cons with either ethical approaches to politics. I tend to take a deontological approach when the consequences are difficult to measure, but when the possible outcomes are measurable, I tend to take a consequentialist approach.  For example, thinking like a political consequentialist, I might not vote for a corrupt politician or an anti-democratic politician, even if I think this will lead to good short term outcomes, because I believe there are potentially larger bad outcomes that come in the long term from having corrupt and anti-democratic politicians in power. But that’s a complicated calculus. Thinking as a political deontologist, I would simply not vote for a corrupt or anti-democratic politician because I have a moral obligation to support only those people who are not corrupt and are for democracy.

People can be on the same side of the political aisle and still argue. Sometimes they argue over the practicality of something. But sometimes they will be arguing for ethical reasons. Something to watch for.

P.S. More on the difference between consequentialism and deontology terms, here. Also this piece, which also adds virtue ethics to the mix.

P.S.S. The photo is of Churchill walking through Coventry. The moral question there was: if you have access to the secret communications of your enemies and you know they are going to bomb a certain city on a certain day, do you warn the people of that city, knowing that by doing so, you risk losing your access and potentially lengthening the war? It’s a question that also comes up in the TV series, Andor, where one character (Luthen Rael) sacrifices 31 men in order to continue hiding the fact that he has an informant in the Empire he is fighting against.