Comparison Of Utilitarian And Deontological Theories Essay

What is Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism also known as consequentialism is a theory that focuses on the consequences of human actions. Theorists who follow utilitarianism believe that everyone ought to act as to bring the most happiness for the greatest number of people. In other words, the correct moral solution is the solution that has the most positive outcomes with the least negative ones. Comparison Of Utilitarian And Deontological Theories Essay. The process of decision making can be seen as very mechanical, calculations are made in order to determine the best outcome. Utilitarianism relies on all followers agreeing on a set list of general rules. The list of rules is followed to increase the overall happiness of a society over long term. Some consider these rules more like general guidelines (Act Utilitarian’s), that can be broken under certain conditions, but the consequences must always be taken into consideration first.

What is the Deontological Theory

Deontological moral systems focus on a person’s obedience to moral duties/rules. Deontologists believe that in order for a person to make the correct moral decisions, they must first understand what their moral duties are and what rules are in place to regulate these duties. So, by following these rules/duties means that a person is behaving morally correct. If they don’t comply to these duties, then that means that the person is behaving immorally. Comparison Of Utilitarian And Deontological Theories Essay.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER NOW

Views of the Human Person

A Utilitarian and Deontologist have very different views on the human person. These views are created by the foundations of each theory. A utilitarian believes that the right moral decision is depended on the consequences that come with making the decision. He/she believes that if his decision brings more happiness than sadness then it is the morally correct thing to do.

Let’s take this hypothetical situation into consideration, if a suspect is captured in relation to a hidden nuclear bomb would it be ok to torture him to find the bomb and prevent this terrorist attack? Looking at this situation from a utilitarian’s point of view the answer would be yes. For arguments sake let’s suppose there are two potential choices: (1). Torture the suspect to get the location of the bomb and prevent it from causing a huge amount devastation or (2). Don’t torture the suspect and hope for another lead to appear putting millions of lives at risk. Comparison Of Utilitarian And Deontological Theories Essay. The answer is calculated, and the lowest number of casualties is found to be in option one. In conclusion utilitarian believe that it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice people for the greater good of humanity.

On another hand we have the Deontologist. Deontologists believe that all human life should be valued equally. They believe that morality is about respecting every human being’s capacity to set rational goals and devote their lives to achieving set goals. The rules that deontologists follow reinforce this theory, these rules forbid many things such as lying and harming others. So, if we were to review the above hypothetical situation (Bomb suspect scenario) but through a deontologists perspective the outcome would be completely different to that of a utilitarian’s.

Contrast in Human Rights

Looking into the fundamentals of both theories we can see that both have a very different take on human rights. To show the difference in human rights between both theories let’s look at abortion. Abortion is a difficult ethical topic in most theories, is it right? Is it wrong? I believe that whether it’s right or wrong depends on the circumstances but let’s consider the following case about a woman who left her home country after falling victim to rape. When the woman arrived in this new country she requested medical treatment and was horrified when she found out that she was pregnant. This pregnancy became a reminder of the pain she had suffered and done a lot of damage to her mental health. Will she be able to get an abortion in this new country? To show the differences between the two theories let’s look at this scenario in two different ways. One where the woman has arrived into a utilitarian society and two she has arrived in a deontological society.

Looking at this Woman’s unfortunate reality with utilitarian human rights, the woman would be eligible for an abortion. The consequences of not having the abortion out way the consequences of having the abortion. If the woman did not have the treatment, then there could be a possibility she could consider ending her life. Resulting in the loss of two lives. So, if this was the case she could get the abortion. If the woman arrived in a deontologists society she would be unable to have an abortion as it goes against the societies beliefs, all human life is valued the same. She would have to put up with the fact that she must give birth to an unloved child whose existence will remind her of pain and suffering she went through. The human rights in both theories are very different, as you can see from this example the difference in human rights completely changes this woman’s life. Comparison Of Utilitarian And Deontological Theories Essay.

Deontology is an ethical theory whose name is derived from the Greek word “deon”, meaning duty or obligation. Deontology holds that people act in an ethically acceptable way whenever they act in accordance with their duties and obligations. But how do we know what our duties and obligations are? Professional codes of conduct often provide good examples of the different kinds of duty that might fall within a deontological theory. For example, doctors are expected to act in accordance with a code of conduct that is very different from the ones that might apply to teachers or policemen.

Deontology holds that some acts are always wrong – even if they achieve morally admirable ends. For example killing, lying and breaking promises is always wrong and according deontological theory we have a duty not to do these things.

Let’s take a look at some strengths and weaknesses of Deontology. One very important feature of Deontology is its consistency – a deontologist acts in a predictable and reliable way, takes his/her promises seriously and honors his/her duties and obligations. So consistency of this kind is very valuable and this is an advantage of this theory.

Another strength of deontology is that it makes sense of supererogation, that means acting above and beyond duty, or exceeding one’s obligations like in example with a hand-grenade in the Chapter 2.2.

And the final strength of Deontology is that it can take account of special obligations – obligations someone has as a result of standing in a certain relationship to someone or something else. Examples of special obligations would be: the obligations parents have to their children; the obligations employers have to their employees; the obligations doctors and nurses have to their patients. Special obligations are created by the relationships that people stand in, and they are limited to cover only the people defined by those relationships.

Talking about weaknesses of Deontology is that there is nothing strikingly rational about it. Deontology requires a justification for the duties and obligations, and the difficulty is that it is not clear where that justification is supposed to come from.

The second weakness of Deontology is a problem with conflicting duties and obligations. Moral dilemmas are created when duties come in conflict, and there is no mechanism for solving them.

A final major weakness of Deontology is that it appears to be indifferent to the consequences that actions undertaken in accordance with duties and obligations might have no matter what is happening deontologist always has to follow his/her duties or obligations.

The opposite of Deontology is the ethical theory known as Act Utilitarianism. Comparison Of Utilitarian And Deontological Theories Essay. It has a single simple principle: “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” The principle focuses attention on the consequences of actions, rather than on some features of the actions, so no action is itself right or wrong. Breaking a promise, lying, causing pain, or even killing a person may, under certain circumstances, be the right action to take, but under other circumstances, the action might be wrong. Using the principle, we are supposed to consider the possible results of each action and then we are to choose the one that produces the most benefit (happiness) at the least cost (unhappiness).

The theory has three main strengths: it is well-meaning; it is rational and it is situational. Act Utilitarianism is well-meaning theory, the central idea behind it is to act in every case so as to bring the greatest amount of happiness at the expense of the smallest amount of suffering. This is a positive feature and an advantage of this theory.

The second advantage of Act Utilitarianism is that it is rational – the Act Utilitarian tries to decide which action to perform on the basis of a calculation. The good consequences of each possible action are added together; the total of bad consequences is then set against the good consequences, to yield the “score”; whichever action “scores” the highest is identified as the best action to perform.

The final strength of Act Utilitarianism is that it is situational – this theory addresses ethical dilemmas on a case-by-case basis. Because the Act Utilitarian attempts to assess the balance of good and bad consequences that will follow from each possible course of action, no two situations will be treated in the same way.

The weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism include:

Impossible to predict. There is no way of knowing in advance what the long-range consequences of an action will be, there is no way of using this theory as a means for deciding which action, in any given circumstances, is the right action to perform.

No room for special obligations or supererogation. From the Act Utilitarian perspective, supererogation is completely meaningless- saints and heroes do no more than they should do.

Inconsistency. The Act Utilitarian’s behavior is not consistent – sometimes he keeps the promise, sometimes not, it depends if keeping the promise will bring the most happiness, then he will keep the promise.

Injustice and unfairness that is produced by inconsistency

After exploring all strengths and weaknesses of these two theories I came to conclusion that they are completely opposite theories and none of them is perfect in a view of decision-making procedure. In most real life situations I would prefer to use Deontology to analyze and resolve moral dilemmas, because this theory is based on duties and obligations, has more morality, more consistency and has room for justice and it concerns for special obligations. Although it is not a very useful theory in situations where there are conflicting duties and obligations and when you have to consider circumstances and also consequences of actions while making a decision.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER NOW