1 Maurn

Utilitarianism Vs Deontology Essay Paper

An Examination of Deontology and Utilitarianism in Deeply Moral Situations

1250 Words5 Pages

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 - 1873) in his essay, Utilitarianism (667). Deontology and utilitarianism are contrasting theories. The former focuses on the intrinsic moral worth of our actions, whereas the latter argues that the consequences of our actions determine…show more content…

In this situation, the prospect of losing one or more of her children will undoubtedly cause the woman tremendous emotional anguish. Her plight corroborates Adams' statement and implies that it is impossible to arrive at a rational decision in moral situations that elicit an emotional response.

If the woman approaches the situation from a deontological standpoint, her decision will be influenced by her desire to act from duty and uphold a maxim that encompasses moral worth. For example, could the woman act according to a maxim that supposes it is prudent (in dire circumstances such as those in which she finds herself) to sacrifice one person's life to save the lives of others? If this maxim can be proved valid (i.e., universalizable), it seems evident that she will choose to kill one child to preserve the lives of the other two. However, this maxim is clearly not universalizable, as it involves using someone as a means to an end. Kant emphasizes, "Man must always be regarded as an end in himself. Therefore I cannot dispose of man in my own person so as to mutilate, corrupt, or kill him" (662). The child who is to be murdered will obviously not consent to this fate for the reason that "it is a duty to preserve one's life, and everyone has a direct inclination to do so" (645). As a result, he will not be considered an end in himself, as he will not agree to share in the purpose of his mother's action (663).

Show More

The following is an excerpt from article DE197-1 from the Christian Research Institute. The full pdf can be viewed by clicking here.


Ethics Theories- Utilitarianism Vs. Deontological Ethics

There are two major ethics theories that attempt to specify and justify moral rules and principles: utilitarianism and deontological ethics. Utilitarianism (also called consequentialism) is a moral theory developed and refined in the modern world in the writings of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).

There are several varieties of utilitarianism. But basically, a utilitarian approach to morality implies that no moral act (e.g., an act of stealing) or rule (e.g., “Keep your promises”) is intrinsically right or wrong. Rather, the rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is solely a matter of the overall nonmoral good (e.g., pleasure, happiness, health, knowledge, or satisfaction of individual desire) produced in the consequences of doing that act or following that rule. In sum, according to utilitarianism, morality is a matter of the nonmoral good produced that results from moral actions and rules, and moral duty is instrumental, not intrinsic. Morality is a means to some other end; it is in no way an end in itself.

Space does not allow for a detailed critique of utilitarianism here. Suffice it to say that the majority of moral philosophers and theologians have found it defective. One main problem is that utilitarianism, if adopted, justifies as morally appropriate things that are clearly immoral. For example, utilitarianism can be used to justify punishing an innocent man or enslaving a small group of people if such acts produce a maximization of consequences. But these acts are clearly immoral regardless of how fruitful they might be for the greatest number.

For this and other reasons, many thinkers have advocated a second type of moral theory, deontological ethics. Deontological ethics is in keeping with Scripture, natural moral law, and intuitions from common sense. The word “deontological” comes from the Greek word deon which means “binding duty.”

Deontological ethics has at least three important features. First, duty should be done for duty’s sake. The rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is, at least in part, a matter of the intrinsic moral features of that kind of act or rule. For example, acts of lying, promise breaking, or murder are intrinsically wrong and we have a duty not to do these things.

This does not mean that consequences of acts are not relevant for assessing those acts. For example, a doctor may have a duty to benefit a patient, and he or she may need to know what medical consequences would result from various treatments in order to determine what would and would not benefit the patient. But consequences are not what make the act right, as is the case with utilitarianism. Rather, at best, consequences help us determine which action is more in keeping with what is already our duty. Consequences help us find what is our duty, they are not what make something our duty.

Second, humans should be treated as objects of intrinsic moral value; that is, as ends in themselves and never as a mere means to some other end (say, overall happiness or welfare). As we will see in Part Two, this notion is very difficult to justify if one abandons the theological doctrine of man being made in the image of God. Nevertheless, justified or unjustified, deontological ethics imply that humans are ends in themselves with intrinsic value.

Third, a moral principle is a categorical imperative that is universalizable; that is, it must be applicable for everyone who is in the same moral situation. Moral statements do not say, “If you want to maximize pleasure vs. pain in this instance, then do such and such.” Rather, moral statements are imperatives or commands that hold for all examples of the type of act in consideration, such as truth telling. Moral statements say, “keep your promises,” “do not murder,” and so forth.

Christian Research Institute

Our Mission: To provide Christians worldwide with carefully researched information and well-reasoned answers that encourage them in their faith and equip them to intelligently represent it to people influenced by ideas and teachings that assault or undermine orthodox, biblical Christianity.

Do you like what you are seeing? Your partnership is essential. Support CRI ...because Truth Matters.™


Subscribe to Christian Research Journal | Visit CRI Book Store | Make a Donation

April 17th, 2009by Christian Research Institute | Type: Standard

Filed Under: Bioethics, Christian Articles

Leave a Comment

(0 Comments)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *