What is intrinsically valuable to you? The situation covered in the short excerpt describes a story about a man who has placed several bombs and won't disclose the location of the bombs to anyone. The question is to torture him or not too? According to the situation at hand, you can either make a conclusion based upon Deontology or Utilitarianism, so which will it be? Deontology is the belief that "the moral worth of an action does NOT lie in the consequences of an action," while Utilitarianism is the belief that "moral worth of an action lies in the consequences of that action" (Garcia, Kant Slide 37). Deontology also believes that good will is the only intrinsic good, in contrast Utilitarianism believes happiness and well-being are the only intrinsic good. Both systems have completely different beliefs, which will be exposed in the following comparisons of the situation.
In the Grounding of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant discusses the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is the belief that we should all act according to the maxim or according to the law of nature. Our actions are important and must be decided appropriately based on morality. Kant has many beliefs within the categorical imperatives some of these include “thou shalt honor contracts, thou shalt not commit suicide, [and] thou shalt not overindulge in food and drink” (xi). Kant believes that even if suicide may lead the person to happiness, it is still unethical and unmoral to commit suicide. Another concept in Kant’s Grounding of the Metaphysic of Morals is perfect duty. Perfect duties as those that are not flexible; there are no exceptions of these duties. According to Kant, “Not committing suicide is an example of a perfect duty to oneself” (30). There are no exceptions to allow a person to commit suicide and it should never
This paper will tackle a theoretical framework based on the Kantian Deontology theory and Kant’s Categorical Imperatives formulations as a representative for the Deontology theory. Thus, aiming to rationalise a critique for the decision that were taken in a personal ethical dilemma, spotting the light on alternative choices and finally reaching a conclusion.
The theory of deontology states we are morally obligated to act in accordance with obvious set of principles and rules regardless of results. Deontological ethics focuses on duties, and rights. The term deontological was coined by the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who described it as “knowledge of what is right or proper” Bentham thought that deontology points in the direction of principle of utility. But contemporary philosophers use the term deontological to indicate a contrast with the utilitarian focus on the consequences of action. Instead of focusing on consequences, deontological ethics focus on duties and obligation: things we ought to do regardless of the consequences. While utilitarian ethics focuses on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number, deontological ethics focuses on what makes us worthy of happiness. For Kant, as for the Stocis and other who emphasize duty, we are worthy of happiness only when we do our duty. As Kant explained, morality “is not properly the doctrine of how we are to make ourselves happy but of how we are to become worthy of happiness.” For Kant, morality is not a “doctrine of happiness” or set of instructions on how to become happy. Rather, morality is the “rational condition of happiness”
Unlike utilitarianism, deontology requires that you set certain boundaries to one 's actions. Fried describes that the deontological perception involves taking into account how to achieve its goals because the act has a moral significance. Unethical acts like lying, slavery, denying, and harmless innocence can not be justified, although it could lead to a lot of good in some cases. For example, a follower of deontology would not argue that a person is happy if this happiness was caused by the suffering of an innocent person. Utilitarism, on the other hand, believes it is permissible to inflict an innocent person harm if this causes more happiness as a consequence of the action. Unlike utilitarianism, the deontologist will appreciate the right actions, although this does not necessarily lead to the greatest
Have you ever ethically considered your decisions? Human being tends to act in terms of their profits, their happiness, their responsibilities and so forth. The majority of people do not criticize whether their actions, decisions, and choices are morally true or not. Throughout the history, many philosophers have tried to explain our decisions morally. One of these philosophers is Kant, another one is Aristotle. For Kant, our moral decisions depend on some duties and we ought to act as required by our choices but for Aristotle, if our decisions aim at some goods, they are absolutely ethical. In my opinion, Aristotelian arguments for moral decision
Also Rule Utilitarianism believes that everyone should follow rules and laws that would bring about the greatest happiness to the majority of people if that means one has to perform these acts, committing murder, breaking promises, lying and even slavery if it promotes overall utility, however, Deontological believes that no such acts should be done under any given situation and we have a moral duty not to do these things regardless of the outcome. However, virtue ethics believe that if you are guided by the virtue of your actions it would produce good outcome. Deontological theory believes that there can be rules that can be followed when making ethical decisions, in contrast, virtue ethics make right or wrong decisions based on the individual they are, without any general rule guiding their
Decisions about right and wrong fill each and every day. Turmoil exists due to deciding if Deontology, where one acts based on the right motives, or if Utilitarianism, where one should act in a way that would produce the best results and consequences, should govern decisions and their morality. However, I believe Deontology, which is reason and duty based, serves as the superior way to dictate morality. In this paper, I will explain both the principles of Deontology and Utilitarianism, discuss the superior aspects of Deontology as compared to Utilitarianism, as well as grapple with objections to Deontology. While both ethical frameworks contain parts of ideologies that could be seen as valid, Kant’s theory on Deontology holistically remains
Kant is remembered in ethics for his deontological ethical theory where he states that an action is morally justifiable if an actor is bound by his obedience to act by a set of laws. Kant’s ethics thus states that one “must” always conform to a set of rules hence at other times called “categorical imperative.” According
Usually beliefs and values are determined by the personal concept of good and evil. Beliefs and values develop accordingly to the individual idea of good. They essentially represent the best actions and things for a person and, very often, for the society. People have often asked themselves, throughout the time, whether what makes an action right or wrong is the motive for which the action is carried out or its consequences and results. Deontological ethics (or deontology) and consequentialism, two opposite branches of philosophy, developed to answer those question. Deontology argues that they are not the consequences of actions to define them but the reason for which the action was carried out in the first place. Consequentialism, on the other
In almost every aspect, people are put into situations which test one’s ethical practices and beliefs. Everyone has their own point of view on how to react in a certain situation, but some events are more complicated to differentiate. For example, in the city of Bhopal in Central India, thousands were affected and even killed due to a local plant’s carelessness. There are several principled based approaches that explain whether ethical practices took place in Bhopal, as well as instrumental and rule approaches, but due to several reasons, principle theories are much more preferred over the others.
Throughout the field of philosophy, ethics play an extensive role. This branch of knowledge is significantly important within the area of moral philosophy, as the main concept touches on moral principles and behaviour of mankind as a consequence of such principles. LaFollette (2000) expressed his view that as a whole, humanity ‘should better understand ourselves, our place in the world, and our relationship to others’, from which I believe, can be derived through ethics. When studying the behaviour of humans and their proficiency to make decisions, I have learned that there are two leading philosophical positions which determine the way in which we think, both rationally and irrationally, and influence our decisions. These two principles consist of consequentialism and deontology. I intend to analyse how the views of consequentialists differ from that of deontologists and determine whether both views are tenable.
(Peter, S., 1995). Ethic value got to be morality, legality, integrity, honesty to make an unbiased and good decision making. Ethic theories that is morality and legality would be Deontology. Deontologists think that they should follow their duties in decision making when ethic are involved, there will be consistent decisions as they based on the individual’s set duties. Deontologists will always follow the law. For example, management can make decision by using cookie jar reserve to increase company revenue for greater outcome in company share value but deontology theories let them feel that it is their duty to make decision that is morality and won’t break the law so they decided not to do it by reporting the actual revenue on the financial statement. Hence Ethic theories like Deontology will make good decision making in preventing financial crime as it is morality and
‘Ethical theories are the rules and principles that determine right and wrong for any given situation’ according to Crane and Matten (2004:76). Its contribution is either relativists which is what is right or wrong relying on the moral norms of our society such as, our culture or absolutists which is deciding what is right or wrong regarding the act, for instance, murder. However, absolutists is divided into Consequentialists (Teleological) which consists of Utilitarianism and ethical egoism and the Non-consequential (Deontological) which consists of divine command theories, Kant’s ethics of duty, virtue ethics, justice approach and the rights approach.
According to White (2014), Powers (2005), Schwickert (2005), Gaus (2001b) and Kuniyop (2008), deontological theories are duty-based theories or non-consequentialist theories, which define morality as the fulfilment of moral duties based on obeying moral rules, principles and maxims, regardless of the consequences. Thus, for deontologists the Right has priority over the Good, which means that even if an act will produce the Good, it may not be undertaken, if it is not in agreement with the Right. There are a variety of deontological approaches to morality, but only a few will be discussed: agent-centred theory, patient-centred theory, contractarian theory, Kantian theory, divine command theory and Rossian deontology.