There are three major perspective of moral reasoning and the first one I will cover is Consequentialism. Consequentialism is a theory that the moral value of a certain act will be determined by its consequence, hence the the word “ consequence ” is inside consequentialism. The quote that is commonly used to present the idea of consequentialism is “ the ends justify the means ”. What the quote is saying is that for whatever action you take on a situation does not determine if you are a good person or not. It is the results that truly matter and determines it all. Consequentialism comes in many forms, and some may not even have a name. A popular form of consequentialism is Utilitarianism. The main focus of Consequentialism and Utilitarianism
Unlike Consequentialism, Deontology focuses solely on a person’s action and not the consequences. In Deontology you basically always have to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and avoid the things that are considered bad. Some of the universal rules that deontologists follows are; 1. It is wrong to kill the innocent. 2. It is wrong to steal. 3. It is wrong to tell lies. Those are some of them, but the list goes on from there. In Deontology you can not justify your action by showing its positive outcome. It does not matter about a good or bad outcome because you have to make sure what you’re doing is morally right. For example, If you had two friends and they bought were dating but friend B cheated on friend A what would be the right thing to do? If you were to not say anything then you would practically be lying to friend A and that would be the wrong thing to do even if she ended up not being hurt and continuing on with the relationship. Even though you would crush friend A’s heart, it would still be considered doing the right thing. A famous deontologist philosopher was Immanuel Kant. He believed that the consequence of an action did not give an accurate display of a person’s good will. Good consequences and bad consequences can happen unexpectedly, so a person’s good will can not be driven on just a consequence of what happens. For example if two men got drunk on a friday night and man A ended up crashing into an innocent pedestrian while the other man made it home safely. Both men made the decision to get drunk, but man A was unlucky and killed someone that night. Since man A killed someone and man B did not, it does not mean that man B is any better than man A. They both happened to make the bad choice but one of them was unlucky, and that is why basing moral reasoning off of consequences would be inaccurate in the perspective of deontologists. Kant also believed that we
Deontology is an ethical theory concerned with duties and rights. The founder of deontological ethics was a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant. Kant’s deontological perspective implies people are sensitive to moral duties that require or prohibit certain behaviors, irrespective of the consequences (Tanner, Medin, & Iliev, 2008). The main focus of deontology is duty: deontology is derived from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. A duty is morally mandated action, for instance, the duty never to lie and always to keep your word. Based on Kant, even when individuals do not want to act on duty they are ethically obligated to do so (Rich, 2008).
Deontological ethics are “ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). This viewpoint focuses more on the action itself rather than the outcome. Per Kant’s Categorical Imperative one should “so act that you treat humanity in your own person and in the person of everyone else always at the same time as an end and never merely as means” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). An example of this is that killing is wrong, even if it is in self-defense. Many of the values and morals of the ELI Responsibilities Lens are based on the deontological
Deontology diverges from consequentialism because deontology concentrates on the rightness or wrongness of the actions themselves instead of the consequences. There are different types of deontological theories. According to Kant, theoretical reasoning helps us discover what we should believe whereas the practical reasoning tells us what we should do. Morality falls under theoretical reasoning. In Kantian deontology, motives matter. Rather than consequences, it is the motive of an action makes that action morally right or wrong. Likewise, if an action intends to hurt someone, but eventually it benefits the other person, then it does not make that action morally right. All in all, deontology comes down to common-sense: whether it is a good action or a bad
So, knowing that deontology creates a valuable beginning for a strong moral theory, one can simply interpret the theory less strictly. Deontology can be a quite appealing theory when not taken so literally. Clearly, one has morals they consider more important than others. If the theory is adjust for this idea, the notion of moral dilemmas is eliminated and one would be allowed to lie if it saved lives. Deontology when looked at loosely is simply a moral theory that says we have morals and we need to consider them when making decisions. Therefore, one may conclude that the overall principles or deontology are correct and that this moral theory should not be dismissed.
German philosopher Immanuel Kant popularized the philosophy of deontology, which is described as actions that are based on obligation rather than personal gain or happiness (Rich & Butts, 2014). While developing his theory, Kant deemed two qualities that are essential for an action to be deemed an ethical. First, he believed it was never acceptable to sacrifice freedom of others to achieve a desired goal. In other words, he believed in equal respect for all humans. Each human has a right for freedom and justice, and if an action takes away the freedom of another, it is no longer ethical or morally correct. Secondly, he held that good will is most important, and that what is good is not determined by the outcome of the situation but by the action made (Johnson, 2008). In short, he simply meant that the consequences of a situation do not matter, only the intention of an action. Kant also declared that for an act to be considered morally correct, the act must be driven by duty alone. By extension, there could be no other motivation such as lo...
This “good will” is the basis of for a deontological argument. Courage, perseverance and patience are all qualities of character, while qualities of mind may include intelligence and judgement. All are desirable and good; however these qualities can become bad and harmful, if there is no good will.
Deontological theory is a “theory of duty” (book). This theory focuses on what is right. It focuses on the duties that we have for ourselves and for one another. Jermey Bentham, a utilitarian philosopher, was the inventor of deontological. He believed that this theory was guided in the same direction as the principle of utility. However, today deontological theories shows contrast with utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant, who is regarded as the greatest modern philosopher, saw deontology as something that contradicts utilitarianism. The utilitarian theories focus on consequences over what is right. They focus on the quality and quantity of happiness that an action brings. Kant emphasizes that we “are worthy of happiness only when we
end product of moral reasoning is a particular behavior, and as a person learns or completes a
ABSTRACT: Recently, unrestrained consequentialism has been defended against the charge that it leads to unacceptable trade-offs by showing a trade-off accepted by many of us is not justified by any of the usual nonconsequenlist arguments. The particular trade-off involves raising the speed limit on the Interstate Highway System. As a society, we seemingly accept a trade-off of lives for convenience. This defense of consequentialism may be a tu quoque, but it does challenge nonconsequentialists to adequately justify a multitude of social decisions. Work by the deontologist Frances Kamm, conjoined with a perspective deployed by several economists on the relation between social costs and lives lost, is relevant. It provides a starting point by justifying decisions which involve trading lives only for other lives. But the perspective also recognizes that using resources in excess of some figure (perhaps as low as $7.5 million) to save a life causes us to forego other live-saving activities, thus causing a net loss of life. Setting a speed limit as low as 35 miles per hour might indeed save some lives, but the loss of productivity due to the increased time spent in travel would cost an even greater number of lives. Therefore, many trade-offs do not simply involve trading lives for some lesser value (e.g., convenience), but are justified as allowing some to die in order to save a greater number.
When you first enter the world, it’s easy for one to develop black and white vision. I’m not talking about actual eyesight. By black and white vision, I mean that people have a simple view of the world where one action is completely right and one action is completely wrong. I was one of those people during my early years. I thought I had a clear picture of who I was and what right from wrong was. My change in views is attributed to the first time I experienced an identity crisis and the ideas of altruism and consequentialism that followed.
Consequentialism is an ethical perspective that primarily focuses upon the consequences resulting from an action and aims to eliminate the negative consequences. Within this framework there are three sub-categories: Egoism, Altruism and Utilitarianism.
Let us discuss consequentialism first. Consequentialism focuses on consequences as the most important factor in the decision making process (Donaldson 3). For consequentialists the motives of an act are not as important as what comes out of it. Utilitarianism is one of the branches of consequentialism. Utilitarianism believes in the greatest good for the number (Donaldson 3). This method along with egoist consequentialism was probably the one that w...
Deontology is when an action is considered morally good because of the action itself not the product of the action ("Deontological Ethics"). When applying Kant’s theory one also has to take into account the two aspects in determining what exactly the right thing in any situation is. They include universality and respect for persons. Universality states that you must “act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law”(Manias). Respect for person’s states that one must “act so that you treat humanity, weather in your own person or that of another; always as an end and never as a means only” (Manias). With this being said one must apply both of these to any option they are
A nonconsequentialist act is the deontology theory. Deontology is a moral obligation or duty to act relating to a principle or rule. Deontology requires the act of humanity. It is never the treatment as a means to an end. A rule of deontology is that one should act in a manner that maxim the act intending to develop the act as a universal law. However, deontology can obligate someone to act in a way that seems wrong and unethical (Mossier, 2013). It is a rigid theory that fails to capture the complex issues that arise. Therefore, one would need to act as everyone would act in that specific situation. When applying the deontology theory, one should focus on the will of the person acting, the person’s intention of carrying out the act, and the rule according to which the act is carried out. Deontology can impact human life within society through the application to the principal in gender equality in areas of employment, health care, and the education system. The
A deontologist asserts that you should do your duty even if you or others suffer as a consequence. Deontology is seen as an obligation to protect regardless of the impact it has on others, whether it be people, animals, and/or the environment and so on. “Deontology focuses on the duties and obligations one has in carrying out actions rather than on the consequences of those actions” (Mosser, 2013). According to deontologist Immanuel Kant, when doing your duty as a deontologist there are “categorical imperatives” that should be followed. In other words there are exceptions for why one is not taking action. “All imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically” (Kant,