The difference is that in deontology, an act may not be beneficial to most of the people. With these views, we construct a dichotomy with Kane on one side and the townsfolk on the other.
Ethically, we can view Kane’s insistence on staying through the lenses of deontology. He chose to stay because he considered it fit and proper to do what is right and that is to make sure that the criminal does not harm anybody. This he did even though he was not the Marshal anymore. One can argue that Kane was actually motivated by self preservation because he feared that Miller would pursue him and his wife unrelentingly. Therefore, he was not motivated by doing what is right as a civil officer but was forced to do so to save his own life. However, he could have run off and left the town under the mercy of a gun wielding crazy criminal but he did not. He chose to stand by his code of honor which is to protect the citizenry. Furthermore, the doctrine of deontology states that happiness is not the goal. For certain, Kane’s goal was not happiness for death was the only prospect facing him with a gun fight with four seasoned gunslingers. Knowing death is inevitable and still having the right intentions characterized Kane’s actions.
For the townsfolk part, we see their decision of not supporting Kane as characteristic of utilitarianism especially in the reasons they forwarded for not doing so. This was especially true in the Church scene where Kane did not get any support because they consider it bad for the development’s of the town’s economy. A gun battle would make the town look uncivilized and unfit for commercial trading. If they just boot Kane out of the town then they can avoid such an event from happening thereby ensuring prosperity for the town. One can see the act of townsfolk as a way of avoiding retribution from Miller’s gang. If they support Kane