Deontology: Particularism Vs. Consequentialism

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

Kai Nielsen defended consequentialism and showed how it can still agree with commonsense, deontological convictions in his article “Traditional Morality and Utilitarianism.” His article focused on closing the gulf between consequentialism and deontology by showing how closely they can agree, and he further evaluated the systems and found that consequentialism as he sees it should be practiced is morally superior to traditional deontology. First, this essay will explain his argument that consequentialism squares with the commonsense convictions of deontology, and second, it will show how Nielsen arrived at the conclusion that consequentialism is a good moral system

In a world with many possibilities, trying to find the best overall outcome can be difficult. Say, when trying to prepare for a test, cheating is an option, but it's always best to actually study instead of going unprepared. Trying to find the morality of decisions, it's always best to go with what is right. But what if both possibilities are just as bad? Or both are seemingly good options and can go either way?

The theory that we should only do the actions that bring about the best consequences is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialism is correct because if the action taken creates the most possible good, then that action must be the right action. Consequentialism leads to the right action because the right action is the

“Deontology is a moral theory that emphasizes one’s duty to do a particular action just because the action, itself, is inherently right and not through any other sorts of calculations – such as the consequences of the action” (Boylan, 2009, p. 171). In many aspects deontology is contrasted with utilitarianism. Deontology is based upon principle and does not calculate the consequences (Boylan, 2009, p. 171). Deontology attracts those seeking a stronger moral attraction because it refers to commanding rather than commending and commanding is a stronger structure (Boylan, 2009, p. 172). The

In a simplistic sense Utilitarianism, originally established by Jeremy Bentham, is the ethical and teleological theory which maintains it is the total consequences of an action which determines its rightness or wrongness; that is, it is not just my happiness which should be taken into account but the happiness of everyone concerned. However, although this is the classical approach to Utilitarianism, this theory as be interpreted in numerous ways- in this essay I will focus on three (Act, rule and preference utilitarianism). Another approach to moral philosophy was put forward by Immanuel Kant, Kant proposes that only duty and rules should govern our actions, as consequences are beyond our control. As a Deontologist Kant faces the same problems

All human beings behave in the same particular way. The two things that we constantly experience in our lives are pleasure and pain. We are always trying to find pleasure while trying to avoid pain. We seek pleasure and avoid pain because pleasure produces happiness and pain tends to produce sorrow and anger. An action would be considered right if that action created happiness and an action would be wrong if that action promoted the opposite of happiness (sorrow, anger, etc.). When we try to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an action we have to contemplate the consequences of other people involved and not just of our own. Moral actions should result in maximizing happiness because it’s the right thing to do not only for yourself but for others as well. The utilitarianism approach states the we should always try to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the largest amount of people over the longest amount of time. Happiness is something that we always struggle to maintain constant in our lives because we regularly find ourselves in problematic situations. When we are in these controversial circumstances we may not incessantly do the right thing because we simply don’t know what the right thing to do is. How we deal with certain issues defines whether we acquire happiness or not.

In contrast with deontology, there is utilitarianism, which is a consequentialist theory. Utilitarianists consider consequences to be an important indicator of the moral value of one’s actions (Rich, 2008). In consequentialist analyses, conclusions about what is right or wrong are based on the consequences (Tanner et al., 2008). Utilitarianism is to promote the greatest good for the greatest amount of people that is possible in situations.

In the context of research, ethics is defined as the systems of moral principles that guide human action (1). Ethics is the reflection of the societies ideals of what is right and wrong. It is required in order for research to be valid and published for an ethics committee to evaluate the proposed research question, design and implementations and provide approval in order for a research project to be considered ethical.

The theory, which insists on conducting ourselves in ways that leads to a greater majority being happy suggests that individuals must sacrifice their own happiness and seek happiness for others. This concept is not wrong as it is morally right to consider all other individuals happiness. Furthermore, it may inculcate significant values such as care. However, it is possible that individuals are not morally bound by any laws to act in this manner. A willingness and desire to help others should be voluntary and totally guided by free-will and choice rather than an ethical theory.

Utilitarianism.com - Consequentialism is the view that an agent is equally responsible for the intended consequence of an act and its unintended but foreseen consequences. In other words, any act is ethical based primarily on its consequences. Individuals who believe in Consequentialism view that any action is right if and only if its total outcome is the best

Fieser, J. (2009, May). In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 20, 2010, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/

Depending on whose view point we’re looking from, one would say you were wrong in this situation. I personally believe I would have also done the same thing, seeing how Starbucks creamers are free to take by anyone. You also didn’t cause a disturbance to anyone in the line or working nor did you violate any laws or rules. But those such as Deontologist and Utilitarian’s have two different views on this, one going with it being moral vs. the other being immoral.

Deontological theories and duties have existed for centuries, primarily because of religion. Before philosophers like Immanuel Kant religious beliefs are what kept people from stealing from their neighbor or cheating on their partners. Kant is responsible for developing a deontological theory completely independent of these religious beliefs and moral responsibilities. His moral theory became extremely influential beginning in 1788, focusing on a human’s capacity for rationality and ability to reason. These deontological theories hold that although an act may lead to a favorable outcome- this does not, however, mean that the act that brought upon that outcome was justified. This way of thinking contrasts greatly with the idea of utilitarianism, which aims to achieve happiness without worry of what that happiness takes to achieve. For example, following this utilitarianism thinking, if you were to cheat another person but the product of your deceit brought you happiness, then your acts are completely justified and no moral ethics have been broken. Deontological theory suggests that the act should be examined completely independent from the outcome. According to Kant’s thinking some acts are unjustified and morally wrong no matter the outcome.

Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a subject of philosophy that engages itself in systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong. It investigates questions of right and wrong and of the best way of living for people. In this essay I am going to explain the differences between the ethical schools of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics and argue that in my opinion deontology is the most reasonable theory of the three.