Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Deontology and consequentialism differ
Deontological ethics and virtue ethics
Deontological ethics and virtue ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Deontology and consequentialism differ
Exploring Ethical Ideologies: Deontology and Consequentialism
Contemporary society adheres to the ethical ideologies that were dictated by philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, W.D. Ross, and John Stuart Mill. The conundrum is deciding which ethical system is more consistent with our values: Deontology or Consequentialism. Both ideologies intend to promote betterment. It is the means used to achieve such goals that compels me to be a deontologist. While Consequentialism presents a pragmatic, amoral process where the end justifies the means, I prefer the ethical ideology deontology with a universal stance within the realm of morality, because its principles provides moral guidance, encourages the categorical imperative, and provide prima facie duties.
First, Deontology is the prevailing universal ethical ideology because its principles provide moral guidance. Deontology finds morality to be a virtue. Its principles have
…show more content…
Intuitively there is a presumption that we, as members of society and world citizens, should make the world a better place. For this reason one may find that moral constraints must be placed on consequences. Consequentialism fails to examine the effects that action has on people and only sees the result. Human rights abuses in war are a result of wars end goals to bring about peace and make improvements.
Consequentialism has no moral guidelines so there is never a cutoff. It only examines consequences of actions. Consequentialism is an “any means necessary” ethical mindset that expects that better circumstances will result from actions. Consequentialism defies morality because only consequences justify action. As taken from the “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” website from a page titled “Deontological Ethics” as paraphrased, “Consequences can justify any act no matter how harmful it is to some as long as it is beneficial to others.” (Alexander and
A common objection to consequentialism, that agents are burdened with duties to help others at the expense of their own happiness, was not even addressed. This in itself seems to be one form of absolutism that riddles consequentialism in general. Nielsen made it clear that one should not be absolute about insisting on weighing consequences when they are barely known, but would he reject this notion as well? It is not clear that this absolutism, of always valuing the good of others over the agent’s own self, is separable from the concept of consequentialism; so it is not clear that consequentialism can escape absolutism as Nielsen concluded in the second argument recounted here.
asks “What are the costs?” and “What are the benefits?”. According to rule consequentialism, rules are selected entirely based on the goodness of their consequences and proceeds to claim that these rules govern what kind of acts are morally wrong. Basically, the rightness or wrongness of an action is contingent on whether it is obligatory or prohibited by an ideal set of rules. An ideal set of...
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
Consequentialism is ordinarily distinct from deontology, as deontology offers rightness or wrongness of an act, rather than the outcome of the action. In this essay we are going to explore the differences of consequentialism and deontology and apply them to the quandary that Bernard Williams and J.J.C Smart put forward in their original analogy of “Jim and the Indians” in their book , Utilitarianism: for and against (J.J.C Smart & Bernard Williams, 1973, p.78-79.).
What is ethics? Ethics are the philosophical principles of good verses bad moral behavior. It is a guideline to help people make decisions or make a judgment calls. There are two main types of ethical principles that will be discussed in this paper, and how they are applied to the decision making process. They are Deontological and Utilitarian. Deontological ethics are based on the righteousness or wrongness of the action-taking place. It does not base itself on the bad or good consequences that come from the action. Immanuel Kant introduced deontological ethics in the 18th century. Kant believed that every decision or action made by a person had to be evaluated by his or her moral duty. He stated that humanity shouldn’t side on its
Firstly, I side with the deontologist when it comes to determining whether or not an action is moral. I or any other person could put for all of the effort that we could possibly muster however their are still plenty of factors that go in to the outcome of an action that are uncontrollable. Enough so that it is not fair to judge the morality of a person solely on the consequences of their decisions. I recognize that any person can claim and lie about having good intentions however this doesn’t effect whether or not the actually do. Their morality or immorality is not determined by myself but instead by themselves what they choose to believe. I don 't necessarily though believe in the categorical imperative. There are too many situations in which acting in accordance to it is almost if not completely impossible. Such as a rich person giving a homeless man $100. Not only can not everyone access that or any homeless person within a reasonable amount of effort, and not only can many people not afford to give that amount, but that man can’t give himself $100. These two beliefs do leave me open to morally allowing suicide, but it is actually the argument of the consequentialists that convinces me believe
German philosopher Immanuel Kant popularized the philosophy of deontology, which is described as actions that are based on obligation rather than personal gain or happiness (Rich & Butts, 2014). While developing his theory, Kant deemed two qualities that are essential for an action to be deemed an ethical. First, he believed it was never acceptable to sacrifice freedom of others to achieve a desired goal. In other words, he believed in equal respect for all humans. Each human has a right for freedom and justice, and if an action takes away the freedom of another, it is no longer ethical or morally correct. Secondly, he held that good will is most important, and that what is good is not determined by the outcome of the situation but by the action made (Johnson, 2008). In short, he simply meant that the consequences of a situation do not matter, only the intention of an action. Kant also declared that for an act to be considered morally correct, the act must be driven by duty alone. By extension, there could be no other motivation such as lo...
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).
Deontological ethics are “ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). This viewpoint focuses more on the action itself rather than the outcome. Per Kant’s Categorical Imperative one should “so act that you treat humanity in your own person and in the person of everyone else always at the same time as an end and never merely as means” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). An example of this is that killing is wrong, even if it is in self-defense. Many of the values and morals of the ELI Responsibilities Lens are based on the deontological
So, knowing that deontology creates a valuable beginning for a strong moral theory, one can simply interpret the theory less strictly. Deontology can be a quite appealing theory when not taken so literally. Clearly, one has morals they consider more important than others. If the theory is adjust for this idea, the notion of moral dilemmas is eliminated and one would be allowed to lie if it saved lives. Deontology when looked at loosely is simply a moral theory that says we have morals and we need to consider them when making decisions. Therefore, one may conclude that the overall principles or deontology are correct and that this moral theory should not be dismissed.
...ts. The consequential approach focuses on utilitarian, pragmatic outcomes of negative nature; non-consequentialism rejects stealing as something contrary to the inherent norms of morality. Both approaches should be used to fight stealing; however, certain principles seem more controversial when the consequential approach is applied. Non-consequential principles, although less pragmatic, help to make the right choice when non-consequential ones are less potent.
Act-consequentialism is a moral theory that maintains what is right is whatever brings about the best consequences impartially considering. The main and most renowned form of act-consequentialism is act utilitarianism which advocates agents choosing the moral path that creates the greatest good for the greatest number, this being the most widely known form of act-consequentialism is the moral theory that I shall be concentrating on though out my discussion. Impartiality is the notion that everybody should count for one and nobody more than one, which is often considered to be a “double-edged sword” (Jollimore, 2017) meaning there is debate as to whether impartiality is a strength or weakness of the theory. Throughout my essay I attempt to point out an important misunderstanding made by theories that uphold impartiality as a weakness of act-consequentialism and how this could lead to the view that impartiality is in fact a strength of both act utilitarianism and act consequentialism.
A nonconsequentialist act is the deontology theory. Deontology is a moral obligation or duty to act relating to a principle or rule. Deontology requires the act of humanity. It is never the treatment as a means to an end. A rule of deontology is that one should act in a manner that maxim the act intending to develop the act as a universal law. However, deontology can obligate someone to act in a way that seems wrong and unethical (Mossier, 2013). It is a rigid theory that fails to capture the complex issues that arise. Therefore, one would need to act as everyone would act in that specific situation. When applying the deontology theory, one should focus on the will of the person acting, the person’s intention of carrying out the act, and the rule according to which the act is carried out. Deontology can impact human life within society through the application to the principal in gender equality in areas of employment, health care, and the education system. The
Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory is referred to as deontology, which is where one acts according to one’s principle. He believes that the will has ethical priority over the body and soul. The only way a will is a good will is to the extent that the person acts from a sense of duty and functions with reason. By determining what is good, Kant uses categorical imperative in order to help in ethical deliberation.
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,