An Examination of Deontology and Utilitarianism in Deeply Moral Situations Samuel Adams (1722 - 1803), an American patriot and politician, once stated, "Mankind are governed more by their feelings than by reason"[1]. This statement is significant, as it undermines two of the primary ethical doctrines in philosophy - the deontological perspective defended by Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) in Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (634), and utilitarianism, supported by John Stuart Mill (1806
Consequentialism, Deontology, and Inevitable Trade-offs 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
Moral Theory and Personal Relationships In his article "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker argues that mainstream ethical theories, namely consequentialism and deontology, are incompatible with maintaining personal relations of love, friendship, and fellow feeling because they both overemphasise the role of duty, obligation, and rightness, and ignore the role of motivation in morality. Stocker states that the great goods of life, i.e. love, friendship, etc., essentially
what was not done for the Sadhu (Donaldson 280). There are three general approaches in examining a moral issue and making a decision, those being consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics. The essay does not clearly indicate which method was used to assess the situation. In my opinion, the best method would be Kantian deontology. Let us discuss consequentialism first. Consequentialism focuses on consequences as the most important factor in the decision making process (Donaldson 3). For consequentialists
stated. My first reason that the moral agent concept is ethical is there is a point when the moral agent will not worry about winning the case because to win the case would involve unethical actions. This reason is backed up by the moral theory deontology. The moral agent treats others as ends in themselves and not as mere means to winning cases. For example, a defendant in a murder trial confesses to his attorney that he is indeed guilty of the crime. The moral agent would not allow for this case
doctor morally obliged to do everything that he/she can possible do in order to restore the patient’s health even if that includes to go so far as to take this decision out of the hands of the patient? I would like use Rule utilitarianism and Kantian deontology to help determine what course of action could be morally justifiable in this case. Rule utilitarianism says “A person ought to act in accordance with the rule that, if generally followed, would produce the greatest balance of good over evil, everyone
Deontology is derived from the Greek word meaning duty. An action is considered morally right when it is a part of a person’s duties or requirements. As long as a person is following the duties, they are considered to be performing morally. Typically, this list of duties or rules are created by God in a deontological system. By acting with morals a person is obeying God’s list of duties. Christopher Bennet writes that, “Deontology, such as Kant’s ethics, there are certain types of act, such as rape
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. According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would
rules or principles in life, and every individual has their own vision on ethics. Deontology is a theory stating that everyone is morally obliged to follow a certain set of rules and regulation in order to be ethical. In this essay, I will be examining the ideals of deontology and discussing why it is morally incorrect to lie based on this theory. Firstly, one must gather the concept behind deontology. Deontology is derived from the Greek word deon, meaning duties . The basis of the theory is that
controversial topic and complex problem. How can we determine if taking our own life is ethical or not? With the many ethical practices we have discussed in class I believe that deontology would provide the best framework on the topic of suicide because it focuses more on the intentions rather than the act itself. The central ideas for deontology consider the well-being of the person, mental state, and the type society they have been living with. With all the concepts in mind, I say that
Introduction In moral theory, deontology deals with study of the nature of duty and obligation. When it comes to deontology, the moral issue of “what, if anything, do we owe other people?” Human beings have moral obligations to an extent. We don’t owe our very existence to others, but we do owe minimal effort, if we can give it. We owe it to requite each others good deeds. It would also work in our favor to have moral dues than to not have them. All in all, we owe others when it comes to morality
decision-making model behind removing the article is at fault, and I will explain both personal and community worldviews that endorse diversity while avoiding generalized statements to preserve the relationship with my significant other. The Church follows deontology because they consider their own rules as absolute. From a deontological position, the Roman Catholic Church is acting under the proposition that God himself is against homosexuals, so people should follow His rule that homosexuality is a sin. However
Kantian deontology is an ethical theory that was developed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The founding principle of this theory is known as the categorical imperative. Within the Kantian categorical imperative, there are two fundamental formulations to be observed. The first formulation is specified as, “Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law.” In other words, one should consider if an action is right or wrong by asking themselves
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
Argument for Deontology One of the cornerstones of deontology is the strength it gives to the idea of a value of a thing. For one, something with intrinsic value is something with dignity, i.e. something with a value that cannot be measured. And while this is typically thought to be chiefly the concepts of morality or rational beings, I would argue that nature additionally has an intrinsic value, this we will further examine momentarily. Theoretically, one does not even need to look at the consequences
between males and females is being treated with the same amount of respect based on qualification, skills, knowledge and the ability to acquire qualification, skills, and knowledge. The social and economic system has benefited greatly with the deontology theory in defining and developing gender equality. However, it has been a slow process. The meaning of equality between males and females has not always had a message of clarity. Miscommunication and misunderstanding of the meaning of equality
philosophy also sheds light on many disciplines centrally explored. For the purpose of this essay I will discuss deontology, the philosophy of religion and touch bass on other disciplines slightly as a reference to how philosophy sheds light on many disciplines. It has been established that philosophy is about logical explanations to particular thoughts, but the thoughts studied by
Out of all the ethical theories we have learned about this semester, Kant’s deontology and the theory of ethical relativism really stand out. Not because they are what I believe in, per se, but they highlight different sides of the ethical spectrum. Both theories play a part in my moral code because, to me, there is no way someone can pick only one theory and say that it is the only truth. The world is constantly changing and so are the people on it. Therefor, it stands to reason that ethical
Before we can get into comparing utilitarianism and deontology, first off we need to explain the very basis of each one. In Ethics there are many ethical theories and dilemmas, some which go hand in hand with each other and some that are in conflict with each other. Utilitarianism and Deontology are two very different ethical theories that are always in conflict with another, I will go into detail to explain both Deontology and Utilitarianism using the book “The Ethical Life” as well as “The Fundamentals
Define Kantian deontology, and give an example. Why is deontology a moral principle? Kantian deontology is defined as a system of beliefs based off morals. Kant concluded that rationality can only decide what the guidelines of morality are. Kantian’s ideology came from human reason. He believes that people’s consequences and emotions shouldn’t play a part in moral actions. Instead, he believes when taking action it should depend on obligations and well thought out. He defines good will by