Ethical Theories: Deontology vs. Utilitarianism - Essay Example

ETHICAL THEORIES: DEONTOLOGY VERSES UTILITARIANISM Student’s name Course name and number Instructor’s name Date submitted Introduction Ethics involves the study of a person’s moral life. Morality is a concept that refers to the personally embraced concepts of duty, obligations and principles of conduct (Matzo & Sherman, 2009). Through reflective thinking and practical reasoning, ethics involves overarching publicly stated sets of rules or principles; it seeks to logically justify choices for right behavior and rules especially in situations that require a new paradigm for judging behavior or in those that challenge the established norms of behavior. Different authors have developed various methods that determine, weigh and rank considerations relevant to a given situation when a decision in made. In establishing whether an action is “right or wrong”, one must first evaluate the motive for the act itself, the moral agent of his or her character, and the effect of the action on others. More succinctly, their theories provide a framework through which morally appropriate actions are determined. In the face of moral dilemmas, the ethical theories help to guide our moral thinking and reasoning, and provide a justification for our actions by discerning commonplace morality. By considering two theories: deontology and utilitarianism, the paper examines their similarities and differences, and explains how each of the theories explains criminal behavior, police corruption, criminal responsibility, punishment, or consequences. While deontological approach to ethics focuses on duties and obligations, utilitarianism focuses on consequences as a base to determine whether an action is right or wrong (Matzo & Sherman, 2009). Deontology According to Graham (2010), individuals commit acts with different intentions or motives, and usually these actions lead to certain consequences. In ethics, we can focus on the actor, the action, the intention or the consequences. A focus on the action itself primarily constitutes to deontological ethics. Therefore, deontological theory is based on dutiful actions; an action is morally right if it agrees with the norms/ moral rules of the society. It encompasses Kantianism, natural law theory and Ross’s prima facie duties. Natural law holds that a person’s actions should obey God’s will and thus, it requires one to use the law of reason that is implanted in the order of nature. This theory is based on the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas who was influenced by the works of Aristotle and Cicero (Butts & Rich, 2005). Human beings are guided by rationality and the highest right reason. Boylan (2011) connects ethical intuitionism to conditional duties (prima facie) by Ross. Although it opposes Kant’s theory by considering consequences, the theory is deontological in nature. It focuses on two moral principles: goodness and righteousness. The prima facie duties dictate what should be done having other relevant factors constant. The theory holds that one is obligated to perform actual duties that are significant to individual circumstance. The prima facie duties described by Munson (2004) cited in Butts & Rich (2005, p. 9) include: “…duties of fidelity: telling the truth, keeping actual and implicit promises; duties of reparation: righting the wrongs we have done to others; duties of gratitude: recognizing the services others have done for us; duties of justice: preventing a distribution of pleasure or happiness that is not in keeping with the merit of the people involved; duties of beneficence: helping to better the condition of other beings; duties of self-improvement: bettering ourselves with respect to virtue or intelligence; and duties of nonmaleficence: avoiding or preventing an injury to others.” The prima facie duties are conditional and not absolute. Therefore, if two duties come into conflict with one another, it is only one of them that can become the actual duty. In such circumstances one duty overrides the other. Kantianism is the most well known deontological way of thinking developed by Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. According to Butts & Rich (2005), Kant defines a person as “a rational human being with freedom and moral worth.” They argue that individuals have the freedom to make moral judgments since they are rational beings, and therefore, they are morally good and admirable if they do their actions with a sense of duty. A person is able to determine what is morally correct though reasoning. Autonomy is the core notion here. People ought to follow a universal framework of rules or moral maxims to guide right duties and actions because it is through dutiful actions that they can have a moral worth (Hitchcock, Schubert & Thomas, 2003). Kant further argued that the consequences of an action can never make an action right or wrong but rather the action itself. Tavani (2009) says that moral actions should be taken as ends in themselves and not as means to ends. Kant emphasized that moral maxims guide conduct and universally apply to everyone. Individuals should generally regard others with respect and dignity, and when they do not, they often feel demoralized and used. Kant identifies two types of duties used to observe the maxims (rules): the categorical imperatives and the hypothetical imperative. The hypothetical imperatives (sometimes called ‘if…then’ imperatives) are rules or duties that individuals should observe in order to achieve certain ends. On the other hand, categorical imperatives include those that are based on reason. Here, moral actions are concerned; duties and laws are absolute, universal and unconditional. An action will be judged right if it has the potential to bind law among all the people (Graham, 2010). Utilitarianism By focusing on the consequences of a person’s actions, Jeremy Bentham founded a theory that promotes the highest good for the greatest number of individuals. Butts & Rich (2005) argue that utilitarianism emphasizes that moral actions are those that result in the greatest good in any situation. In his book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Bentham (1798/1988) argues that each form of happiness is equal and every action should be evaluated in accordance to the happiness, pleasure and goodness that it produces. However, Mill (1863/2002) challenges Bentham’s view (in his book Utilitarianism) by pointing out that objects of happiness and pleasure should be prioritized depending on an individual’s intellectual ability such that the higher, most prioritized pleasures are preferable over lower pleasures, such as those that give physical pleasure or immediate gratification alone (Sheng & Sheng, 2004). All in all, the utilitarianism approach is based on the greatest happiness principle that advocates the greatest happiness for everyone concerned. Since it mainly emphasizes on groups, and not individuals, the focus of utilitarianism approach flies on acts that result the most good in terms of the most happiness. The theory focuses on consequences, utility, and ends since they are the one to determine the most happiness. Comparison between deontology and utilitarianism Deontology and utilitarianism are two major ethical theories that attempt to explain and justify moral principles and rules. Although one focuses on the action itself and the other on the consequences of the action, they both provide a framework in which an action is considered to be right or wrong. Both ethical theories provide a guideline to moral thinking and reasoning, as well as a justification for people’s actions by discerning commonplace morality. The two theories, however, contrast in a number of ways. The fundamental difference between deontology and utilitarianism is in the focus on outcomes or consequences mainstream. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory that justifies the moral theory, right, or obligations on the grounds that it aims to promote good as illustrated by Gerald Gaus cited in Sheng & Sheng (2004). William Frankena cited in Sheng & Sheng (2004), on the other hand, argues that deontological theories…. “deny that the right, the obligatory, and the morally good are wholly, whether directly or indirectly, a function of what is non-morally good or what promotes the greatest balance of good over evil for self, one’s society, or the world as a whole” (p. 193). They argue that there are other considerations that can determine if an action is morally right or wrong besides considering the badness or the goodness of its consequences. Utilitarianism being a teleological theory, it regards the good as the right. On the other hand, as a non-teleological theory, deontology regards justice as “independent of the good and more important than it, and asserts that the right is prior to the good, and that the good is not necessarily the right” (Sheng & Sheng 2004, p. 194). On the same matter, deontology regards the right or justice as absolute and emphasizes that at least some rules and moral principles should be strict and not permit any exception. Another difference is that deontological theories deny the concepts that teleological theories (i.e. utilitarianism) affirm. Seedhouse (2008) argues that deontology holds that some actions are morally obligatory despite of the consequences that they have on human beings. Jeffrey Reimann advances this argument by stating that deontological theories considers the actions themselves as well as their immediate consequences rather than the overall or long term goodness or badness of the consequences. Unlike utilitarianism, which argues that a moral action is the one that promotes happiness for the greatest number, deontology emphasizes upon individual duty. Deontological theory depends upon principles and commandments by assuming that there are naturally right things to do but utilitarianism is not. Utilitarianism is not even concerned with the motives for actions but with the consequences of the actions (Seedhouse, 2008). Hitchcock, Schubert & Thomas (2003) says that unlike utilitarianism, deontology is based on moral obligation and duty rather than usefulness or utility. In distinguishing between the two theories, let us consider an example of a protestant girl raped and murdered. If through general consensus it is agreed that it is a catholic who has been speculated to have committed the crime, and the Protestants have demanded the constable to find the killer before sunset and bring him into justice or else they torch the entire catholic section of town killing 1,000 individuals. Having worked all day long without being successful and it is only one hour remaining, his deputy proposes that they pick one catholic and tell the Protestants that he is the one who did it. Although the constable will be held responsible for killing an innocent man, the deputy feeling that they can do nothing to stop the mob and therefore it is better for one innocent person to die but save 999 lives. From a deontological point of view it will be morally wrong to randomly chose an innocent scapegoat since such an option will go against the rules of what is right. Therefore, deontology will not allow such an outcome. On the other hand, utilitarianism will allow the outcome in attempt to bring greatest good to many (i.e. saving 999 lives. From a utilitarian perspective, it will be morally right to sacrifice 1 life rather than leaving 1000 people to be killed; a worse outcome. A traffic police officer may take a bribe from a passenger service vehicle for failure of passengers belting up. This act of taking the bribe, according to deontology, is morally wrong since police corruption is not allowed. Alternatively, the police officer might arrest the passengers and they be charged for not obeying the law. Since most of them are poor, it will be morally wrong to impose the huge fines on them but just take small amount as a bribe so that the police officer may overlook the issue. Therefore, through utilitarianism, the corruption by the police officer will constitute to greatest good for greatest number of individuals and therefore the action will not be morally wrong. Let us consider another example of the issue of lying or withholding the entire truth concerning an issue. For a deontologist, lying under any circumstance will be wrong since it violates the moral duty of telling the truth. One has to tell the truth despite of the consequences that may arise. On the other hand, the proponents of utilitarianism approach will argue that in some circumstances lying would be preferable in attempts to bring the greatest good and fewer evil consequences. For instance, lying about the whereabouts of an individual to an evildoer who may harm him would constitute to a moral action since it produces greater good consequences despite the violation of the moral duty of telling the truth (for utilitarianism). For deontologists, they would rather declare lying as morally unjustifiable and rather violate the duty of veracity. In my view I regard utilitarianism theory of ethics to be a better than deontology since I believe the consequences should be the main consideration when choosing what is morally right or wrong rather than focusing on the action itself. Have a look at the issue of abortion: For deontologists abortion will be morally wrong and unjustifiable regardless of whether it meant to save the life of the mother because it violates the moral duty to avoid killing so as to preserve life. However, for utilitarian, preserving the life of the mother by aborting the fetus will bring greatest good. It will allow the woman to return to her family, spouse, and other children as well as contribute to the society in general. For the utilitarian, aborting the fetus will represent fewer bad consequences rather than allowing the mother to die leaving the child to suffer. Conclusion An action can either be considered morally right or wrong depending on the perspective that a person looks it. An evaluation of the motive for the act itself, the moral agent of one’s character, and the effect that the action causes others determines whether an action is morally right or wrong. From one perspective, an action can be morally right but from another perspective it is morally wrong. Deontology focuses on the action itself; it involves following set rules and duties as to what is considered right or wrong. A deviation from these rules and regulations will constitute to a wrong moral action. On the contrary, utilitarianism primarily focuses on the consequences of an action. A morally right action is the one that produces the greatest good and fewer evil for a large number. References Boylan, M. (2011). Morality and Global Justice: Justifications and Applications. Boulder, CO: Westview Press Butts, J. B. & Rich, K. (2005). Nursing ethics: Across the curriculum and into practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Graham, G. (2010). Theories of Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy with a Selection of Classic Readings. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Hitchcock, J. E., Schubert, P. E. & Thomas, S. A. (2003). Community health nursing: Caring in action, Volume 1. Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning. Matzo, M. & Sherman, D. W. (2009). Palliative care nursing: Quality care to the end of life. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Seedhouse, D. (2008). Ethics: The Heart of Health Care. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Sheng, C. L. & Sheng, Q. (2004). A defense of utilitarianism. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. Tavani, H. T. (2009). Ethics and technology: Controversies, questions, and strategies for ethical computing. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Read More