To contest, I would start by reminding of the central values of utilitarianism, mainly on the idea of the greatest happiness principle and of the greatest overall happiness. Morally, the correct decision is the one that brings about the most happiness. And while thinking small I could see how one could assume that that might only mean the happiness of those directly involved, in actuality it tells us that it refers to all people equally and does not put any extra emphasis on people that are significant to the person, or even the person themselves. Therefore, if something was of some benefit to you and it could potentially be of some benefit
Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics propose two different ideas on morality of an action. Where one focus on the end result and the other on the action itself rather than the result. In my opinion Kantian ethics hold a greater moral value to an action because any action is thought up in a rationalized process, to determine whether it will be moral, where as Utilitarian’s propose that the morality is determined by the consequences, which are never quite certain anyway. Kantian theories would be a better choice for someone who is determined for a particular action because it promotes the value of human traits, and promotes fairness and equality which can be applied unconditionally.
Must we then decide among them not simply on the basis of their adequacy to explain and justify moral judgments but on the basis of simple preference, i.e. because we "like" one better than another? We are more likely to believe a moral theory that says that most of our moral beliefs are correct, then one that says that most of our moral beliefs are inconsistent. Of course no theory will make them all come out true. We have to balance the question of our philosophical grounds for believing that the moral theory is in fact true — that it corresponds to the demands that actually exist for us in reality — rather than merely being an accurate codification of what we happen to believe.
(Foot 1972: 311). Morality and its standards are often assumed to be 'intrinsically' motivating, and this is how they regulate society's behaviour. (Prinz in Batson 2011:41). Yet Batson suggests rather than intrinsically motivating, we conform to the principles to avoid social and self-rewards, where we are viewed as morally good. Morality for Kant is determined by whether certain moral actions could be turned into a universal maxim.
A deontologist is an individual who focuses the righteousness of an action being something that is right or doing something wrong. Deontology focuses mainly on the actions themselves, not the outcome, emotional aspect, nor the consequences of the action. Demonology is also known as duty-based ethics, and utilitarianism is also know us utility-based ethics. The two topics are similar but they also have a difference separate the two. While utility-based ethics emphasizes on the end result, and what the right decision is based on making a person happy in the end.
What makes actions right? For some philosophers it is their consequences, like the pleasure or happiness that they produce. However for a deontologist like Immanuel Kant, rightness is the action itself and the obligation to perform it. His ethics is a theory of how a person should act, the actual action and morality of the action. It entails that as long as a person acts in a moral way then the consequences of the actions do not matter.
In a sense, it is up to the people to determine what is right and wrong. On the other hand, moral objectivism views that morality is not parallel, or relative, to one 's beliefs. That it is independent and not subjective to one 's interpretations, thus it is objective and universal moral facts exist. Louis. P. Pojman, an American philosopher and professor,
If we base our moral actions on our feelings then we are not following the moral principles as they should be followed. We are subjecting morality to our own beliefs, therefore making it something else. Let us take the Golden rule as an example. The Golden rule says "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." The Golden rule is supposed to be moral, it implies that you should treat others in a good way.
However, the rebuttal to that is that a person's actions are not products of chance, but of choice. Because of this, we can see how we can be held morally responsible. Indeterminism states that at least some events, mostly human actions, are not completely caused. The main argument for indeterminism is that it is a rejection of causation, there is no explanation, and without explanation, there can be no responsibility. However, indeterminism is not a complete rejection of causation, and therefore it is impossible to eliminate explanation and responsibility based on that statement.
Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.