An Examination of Deontology and Utilitarianism in Deeply Moral Situations

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 their moral value. Nevertheless, both perspectives substantiate Mill's claim that "our moral faculty.is a branch of our reason, not of our sensitive faculty" (678). Reason is an indispensable aspect of Kant's deontological view, as he believes the will is a capacity unique to rational beings. In Kant's opinion, the will is essential, as it facilitates our ability to act according to the universalizable maxims we establish for ourselves (653). Reason is also a crucial element of utilitarianism, as it is the intellectual faculty that enables us to distinguish the course of action with the best possible outcome (i.e., the choice that will ensure the greatest happiness or least amount of pain for as many people as possible) (688). However, since both deontology and utilitarianism are governed by the notion that moral judgements are established through reason, can either theory apply in circumstances in which rational thought is not feasible? For example, during World War II, a Nazi soldier offers a ...

... middle of paper ...

...the least possible amount of pain). As a result, the subjective emotional component that invariably arises in situations of moral import reinforces the difficulty in ascribing concrete rules and principles to circumstances that involve moral deliberation. All that can be shown is that the woman's final decision may seemingly correspond to either deontology or utilitarianism in hindsight; however, her unavoidable emotional anguish hinders her ability to think rationally in terms of either perspective at the time in which she is forced to make her decision.

Work Cited

Bailey, Andrew, ed. First Philosophy: Fundamental Problems and Readings in Philosophy. 1st ed. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2002.

Notes:

[1] Steven J. Hayes. Quotes by Adams, Samuel from Basic Quotations. 16 Dec. 2002. Online. 15 Feb. 2004

.