Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why utilitarianism is better than deontology
Morality and lying
Why utilitarianism is better than deontology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Why utilitarianism is better than deontology
Immanuel Kant is referred to as the “father” of deontological ethics, which is also colloquially referred to as Kantianism, which provides a sophisticated explication of deontology. His philosophy embodies capitulating to one’s maxim, which he beliefs that to be good, however, only if one’s motives are unconditional and irrespective to external reason. The maxim is referred to as the individual’s intrinsic duty or obligation to one’s self or to others, which if applicable to everyone than it is congenial to the universal law. John Stuart Mill is an advocate of the utilitarian theory, which believes that happiness is the manifestation of pleasure and the absence of pain. These pleasures that Mill speaks of is divided into two forms, that being bodily and intellectually, which I will address later along this essay. This essay will articulate an adequate explication of the Deontological and the Utilitarian theory and explaining the position that Kant and Mill would have regarding the question, “is it morally permissible to tell a lie?” I will also be providing my position regarding which theory is to be most reasonable, as well as which theory best addresses the question.
Immanuel Kant philosophy begins with the concept of “good will,” which he believes to be the only good in itself. There are many qualities that attribute to the goodwill (courage, resolution, and perseverance), but they are not intrinsically good, because they too can be deleterious. However, with the interweaving of the goodwill and these qualities we than can see the manifestation of good in these qualities. Kant states that theses qualities can be miss directed without the proper adroitness of the goodwill applied to these qualities, the alignment of the will and...
... middle of paper ...
...e utilitarian method is that is it indifferent to partiality to one’s own position. With the majority rule tactic, it appears that the minority become aphonic and can easily be controlled—this philosophy would find it permissible for slavery to occur. Deontic ethic, on the other hand, attracts more towards duty over good. Deontic ethics differs in the sense that results cannot contravene in one’s reason in abiding by their moral duties. One cannot also be used as an ends, so slavery would not be permissible. The problem that I find with deontology is that it does not seem to be practical, because in the case involving lying; one cannot lie even if it was to save people. I believe in the utilitarian method, because even though majority rules, those are intellectually aware would find it acceptable for discourse among the citizens, disregarding their social position.
Bailey, T. (2010). Analysing the Good Will: Kant's Argument in the First Section of the Groundwork. British Journal For The History Of Philosophy, 18(4), 635-662. doi:10.1080/09608788.2010.502349 Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9f0eb1ba-edf5-4b35-a15a-37588479a493%40sessionmgr112&vid=10&hid=115
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up.
The deontological view would be that we should act according to a set of rules, obligations, or duties that we must fulfil, unmindful of the consequences. Kant, a popular deontological philosopher of the 19th century, wrote in his “Foundations of Metaphysics of Morals”,
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
His moral theory states that the rightness of an action is determined by its end or consequence, which means that its moral obligation is based upon what is a good or desirable end, or consequence, to be accomplished. “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest-happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Bentham & Mill pg. 99). This means that Mill’s moral theory states that the consequences of an action are the only standard of right, what promotes happiness or pleasure, and wrong, promotes unhappiness or pain, not the rights or moral opinions involved in that circumstance. This opposed to Kant’s deontological moral system concerned with obligation, one’s duty, which is derived from reason rather than in the maximization of some good resulting consequence. Mill’s ethical view is very intuitive and it links pleasure with morality instead of possibly setting pleasure in opposition of morality. “The theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded – namely, that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain” (Bentham & Mill pg. 99). His utilitarian principles provide organization to a person’s intuitive morals, such as murder being morally wrong. It also follows people’s common sense belief that pain is bad and pleasure is good which is universal in all people even among those who may have other different and conflicting moral beliefs.
German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s point of view on lying differs from the British philosopher John Stuart Mill. This paper will compare and contrast the arguments of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill on the act of lying.
The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a very important one. We each have our standards of right and wrong, and through the reasoning of individuals, these standards have helped to govern and shape human interactions to what it is today. No other beings except “rational beings,” as Kant calls us, are able to support this higher capability of reason; therefore, it is important for us to consider cases in which this capability is threatened. Such a case is lying. At first, it seems that lying should not be morally permissible, but the moral theories of Kant and Mill have answered both yes and no on this issue. Furthermore, it is difficult to decide which moral theory provides a better approach to this issue. In this paper, we will first walk through the principles of each moral theory, and then we will consider an example that will explore the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.
Kant explores the good will which acts for duty’s sake, or the sole unconditional good. A good will is not good because of any proposed end, or because of what it accomplishes, but it is good in itself. The good will that is good without qualification contains both the means and the end in itself. People naturally pursue the good things in life and avoid the bad. Kant argues that these good things are either means to a further end or good ends in and of themselves.
The Transcendental Deductions of the pure concept of the understanding in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, in its most general sense, explains how concepts relate a priori to objects in virtue of the fact that the power of knowing an object through representations is known as understanding. According to Kant, the foundation of all knowledge is the self, our own consciousness because without the self, experience is not possible. The purpose of this essay is to lay out Kant’s deduction of the pure concept of understanding and show how our concepts are not just empirical, but concepts a priori. We will walk through Kant’s argument and reasoning as he uncovers each layer of understanding, eventually leading up to the conclusion mentioned above.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
Kant believes the morality of our action doesn’t depend on the consequences because consequences are beyond our control. According to him, what determines the morality of action is the motivation behind the action and that is called will. Kant states that there is anything “which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will” (7). He suggests other traits such as courage, intelligence, and fortunes and possessions such as fortune, health, and power are not good in themselves because such traits and possessions can be used to accomplish bad things if the actions are not done out of goodwill. Thus, the good motivation is the only good that is good in itself. It is the greatest good that we can have. Then, the question that arises is how do we produce good will? Kant claims that our pure reason
John Stewart Mill has a much different ethical view that Kant. Mill is a Utilitarian, which in the book is described that, “It claims that the morality of an action is determined by how well it promotes ‘utility’, which is defined as the greatest good for the greatest number” (417). This ethical view measures the morality of an act by what the outcome is. If it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number it is moral. This is also referred to as the greatest happiness principle. Happiness being pleasure and the absence of pa...
Bailey, T. (2010). Analysing the Good Will: Kant's Argument in the First Section of the Groundwork. British Journal For The History Of Philosophy, 18(4), 635-662. doi:10.1080/09608788.2010.502349 Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9f0eb1ba-edf5-4b35-a15a-37588479a493%40sessionmgr112&vid=10&hid=115
What I have found to be most interesting about both Deontology and Utilitarianism isn’t their approach to ethics, but rather their end goal. Deontology promotes “good will” as the ultimate good; it claims that each and every person has duties to respect others. On the other hand, Utilitarianism seeks to maximize general happiness. While these may sound rather similar at first glance (both ethical theories essentially center around treating people better), a deeper look reveals different motivations entirely. Deontology focuses on respecting the autonomy and humanity of others, basically preaching equal opportunity. Utilitarianism does not specify any means by which to obtain happiness—happiness is its only mandate. While happiness sounds like a great end goal, it is a rather impractical one and the lack of consideration of motivations and means of utility-increasing actions has some serious negative consequences. I prefer Deontology over Utilitarianism for its focus on individual’s rights, opportunity, and personal autonomy.