Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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, murder, theft and assault that are always wrong” (Bennet, 2010, p. 33). For example, if it is morally wrong to kill, killing is then always wrong, even if that means allowing a person to suffer. Kant believes that a person will come to know what is right and wrong by rational thought. Deontology is the most common moral theory that is widely practiced in the world, especially within healthcare. The negative side of a deontological system is that it doesn’t allow resolution between two contradictory moral duties. Looking at the example above, it is morally wrong to kill, but it is also a moral duty to not allow someone to suffer.
The theory of deontology concentrates on the appropriateness of the act versus the results of the act (Powers, 2005, pp. 496-499). Because of this, the correct action may or may not be enjoyable for the agent. Also, others may or may not approve of it and it may create pleasure, riches, or pain. Consequentialist believes that the end justifies the means, yet the deontology says that doing something right is not always good if it is going against what is deemed as moral. Let’s relate this to a hospital situation: three critically ill patients are in ICU and they all need organs to survive. A healthy young man c...
... middle of paper ...
...rt instead of your head. I believe that most people want to live morally, but circumstances doesn’t always allow it. Telling a “white lie” to your children doesn’t put them or yourself in harm. A mother stealing food to feed her starving babies, probably doesn’t want to be immoral but feels she doesn’t have a choice not to. Nothing is ever black and white. People are not born to be moral, it is the parent’s responsibility to teach children from an early age morals. If a person is not taught morals, is it the person’s fault or the parents? Would Kant say that it is the parent’s moral obligation or duty to teach that child morals?
Works Cited
Bennet, C. (2010). What is This Thing Called Ethics? New York, NY: Routledge.
Powers, T. M. (2005). Deontology. In E. C. Mitcham, Encylopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics (pp. 496-499). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.
Deontology theory defines an ethical action as one that adheres to a set of rules and duties. PharmaCARE’s actions are unethical by way of this moral compass because the firm has failed to perform in accordance with one very important duty, the duty to safeguard human dignity and basic human rights. Paying $1 a day to its workers and not providing them with even the most basic of amenities is a gross violation of the firm’s obligation to safeguard human rights, which in itself is a morally required behavior and applicable almost universally. PharmaCARE is not treating the Colberians like the treat their executives, nor are they treating the community there as they treat the communities in the
Deontology diverges from consequentialism because deontology concentrates on the rightness or wrongness of the actions themselves instead of the consequences. There are different types of deontological theories. According to Kant, theoretical reasoning helps us discover what we should believe whereas the practical reasoning tells us what we should do. Morality falls under theoretical reasoning. In Kantian deontology, motives matter. Rather than consequences, it is the motive of an action makes that action morally right or wrong. Likewise, if an action intends to hurt someone, but eventually it benefits the other person, then it does not make that action morally right. All in all, deontology comes down to common-sense: whether it is a good action or a bad
While I can appreciate your reference to consequential ethics, there are many strengths and weakness to consequentialism. In this case study, it is understandable there are potential consequences to allowing and acute stroke patient return to home without an adequate support system. The patient may not be able to take care of herself properly and provide the basic necessities of life. According to Pozgar (2016), based on the view that the value of an action derives solely from the value of its consequences…the goal of a consequentialist is to achieve the great good for the greatest number (p. 38).
This case is a very difficult one because it’s not just involving you but it is involving the people you love dearest. You are basically being given only two choices and that is to save your family or to watch them die. This essay will discuss the different take utilitarian’s have on the decision and the outlook deontologists have
Togelius, J. (2011). A procedural critique of deontological reasoning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of DiGRA.
Ethics is not a concept that is thought about often, but it is practiced on a daily basis. Even while unconscious of the fact, people consider ethics while making every choice in life. There are many theories to which people allude, but two radically different theories that are sometimes practiced are deontology and utilitarianism. Deontology deals with actions in a situation while utilitarianism examines the consequences of those actions. While polar opposites on the broad spectrum of ethics, deontology and utilitarianism are bioethical theories that can be applied to nursing practice and personal life situations.
Deontology is an ethical theory concerned with duties and rights. The founder of deontological ethics was a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant. Kant’s deontological perspective implies people are sensitive to moral duties that require or prohibit certain behaviors, irrespective of the consequences (Tanner, Medin, & Iliev, 2008). The main focus of deontology is duty: deontology is derived from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. A duty is morally mandated action, for instance, the duty never to lie and always to keep your word. Based on Kant, even when individuals do not want to act on duty they are ethically obligated to do so (Rich, 2008).
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 be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards.
In the episode, there are two types of deontology. One is don’t do harm to patients presented by Dr. Crusher, one is to respect patients’ wishes presented by Commander Riker. Which type of deontology doctors should follow when they make decisions about treatment? From my point of view, it depends on the mental condition of patients. If patients are not sensible and mature enough to response for their decision, such as irreversible coma, severe senile dementia, children without mature concept of death, doctors should follow the former type of deontology—don’t do harm to patients; if patients are sensible and mature enough to response for their decision, doctors should follow the latter type of deontology—to respect patients’
Deontology in Immanuel Kant’s point of view is all about duty and not inclination of morality. For example, the First Proposition of Morality is an action that must be done from duty to have moral worth (298). In other words, if one were feeling generous and wanted to give money to the ones who really need it, this technically would not be moral worthy according to Kant. The reason why for this is because that person did not do it out of duty but instead out of free will. For one’s action to have moral worth, it could be an example of one going to work everyday. Everyone has their own specific job to do at work and that is their duty. All in all, Kant views that deontology must come from an action of duty in order for it to be moral worthy and it is not the consequences that determines what is right or wrong.
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 of hurting the environment (while empirically they of course should be contemplated) because according to deontology, the action is wrong simply because the act itself is not good, and has nothing to do with the turnout of the action.
A deontologist believes that irrespective of consequences some acts are deemed intrinsically wrong (Flanagan, 2016b). Kant (Flanagan, 2016b) offers the following “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Therefore, morality is determined by the principle of the action, rather than the action itself. From a deontological stance to cause “unnecessary suffering” is intrinsically wrong, thus animals as morally innocent, vulnerable and being able to feel pain (Linzey, 2013; Rollin, 2011) are owed moral obligations. Furthermore, “ a morally considerable being is a being who can be wronged in a morally relevant sense” (Gruen, 2014). Therefore, discussion of animal vivisection in
Deontological ethics is a normative theory based on performing your duty and obligations; focusing on what the right action is regardless of the consequences. We are only worthy of happiness when we do our moral duty, which applies to everyone, everywhere, and always. Stoicism, a form of deontological theory is the belief that although you do not control the outside world you can control how you react to it. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who promoted deontological theory; also known as non-consequentialism. He prized autonomy and freedom, believing life was about more than happiness, it was about doing one’s duty.
If someone is suffering from a terminal illness and wishes to die on their own terms, they might believe they are obligated to euthanasia. However under categorical imperative, suicide would be morally incorrect as people are doing so to ease their own sufferings. They are doing so to achieve self-benefits, and considered selfish, even if they are in pain. Therefore I believe deontology to be wrong or flawed rather, as it does not address the circumstances that make self-driven actions and goals correct. I think given that each individual’s lives are unique and different, there should be some tolerance to personal actions, goals and the beliefs each person values.
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 Kant, when doing your duty as a deontologist there are “categorical imperatives” that should be followed. In other words there are exceptions for why one is not taking action. “All imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically” (Kant,