Deontology in Jim and the Indians

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

The word deontology comes from the Greek word “deontos” which means duty (Adams, 2011). Deontology can be defined as doing what is morally correct regardless of the final results as long as they abide by the moral principles. Certain actions, like lying, are never allowed regardless if its outcomes benefit the purpose and no harm is caused. The theory states that whether an action is ethical and follows the moral rules, depends on the intentions behind the decisions (Pieper, 2008). So for an action to be “good” and morally right, it must have been performed at goodwill and abide to moral values.

explains the consequentialist as the idea of looks to the consequence of an action in order to evaluate it. Even if the intention of the action is wrong or violent someone’s right, the its result for the general good is still the focus. In the other hand, deontological is more about the idea of only right or wrong. There is no intention or consequence, just with the moralistic ethics. One example of contrast he used in the book is the idea of utilitarian. Utilitarian can be express in the prospect of consequentialist ethics, because it will look at individual situation and create a decision that will benefit the greater people. However, the same situation in the idea of deontological

With this theory Michael Boylan explains that, “no calculations, such as consequences of the action can be measured.” The act should only be based on duty and must be consistent with their absolutism. This may lead to the action of a deontologist turning out morally wrong. This theory often contradicts the other ethical theory utilitarianism. Michael Boylan explains that, “ the result of deontology acts on the moral of command rather than the possibility of the greater good”.

“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

Before explaining why deontology is the best option for the accounting profession, the definitions of each ethics systems must be explained in detail. First, deontology only takes into consideration the issues of fairness, rights, and commitments (Duska, 2011). This system focuses solely on what is right and wrong no matter what the consequences are for self or others. In other words, a deontologist focuses not on the results of the action, but the action itself (Uyar, et.al., 2015). Deontologists believe that moral decisions are based on their obligations and duties. They believe that right is always right and wrong is always wrong, regardless of the outcome.

Consequentialism refers to the idea that what is morally good or bad is all based on the consequences of one’s actions. It is derived from the Theory of Right Action which is a part of

The Deontological ethics is marked by steadfastness to universal principles—for example, respect for life, fairness, telling the truth, keeping promises—no matter what the consequences (Halbert, Law & Ethics in the Business Environment. pg. 17).

As a result of continued human suffering and questions of morality, many ethical theories have been developed over time to guide humans on how to coexist, differentiate between right and wrong, and live a “good” life. Many times, these different ethical theories seem to contradict one another, but all are conceived with the intention to guide morally just lives. Deontology is the most applicable theory of ethics because Deontology possesses a universal categorical imperative encompassing the ideas of having a “good will” and making decisions based on duty. The idea of having a universal categorical imperative prompts decision making that is increasingly based on duty, impartiality, justice, and considering how a particular decision will

In Normative Ethics there are three distinct schools of thought, and each differentiate through moral intentions. Consequentialism relies on the consequences of an action in order to distinguish whether or not something is morally acceptable. Deontology considers the morality of an action by one’s reason for doing a certain deed. Lastly, virtue ethics bases morality off of virtuous character, and how a virtuous person would act given a certain predicament. Ultimately, consequentialism provides the most practical explanation for morality due to the notion of providing the best possible result. Contrarily, deontology and virtue ethics do not always provide an individual with the most sensible course of action, and therefore prove to be

Philosophybasics.com - Deontology, also known as “duty-bound” ethics, mainly focuses on the rightness or wrongness of an action, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequence of the action. In short, Deontology teaches that any act is ethical as long as it adheres to the moral

Consequentialism and non-consequentialism are both action based ethical frameworks that people can use to make ethical judgments. Consequentialism is based on examining the consequences of one’s actions as opposed to non-consequentialism which is focused on whether the act is right or wrong regardless of the outcome (Burgh, Field & Freakley, 2006). The three sub-categories of consequentialism are altruism, utilitarianism and egoism.

The first of the Deontology theories is the agent-centered theory. Agent-centered is about a person’s rights and duties. People are responsible for making sure that their actions are morally right and do not interfere with obligations. With agent-centered, we are supposed to perform actions even if we know that the outcome would be better if we decided to ignore our obligations and principles. Agent-centered theories define obligation as “an obligation for a particular agent to take or refrain from taking some action” (Alexander, Larry and Moore, Michael).

Deontology is what some will see as a duty. With utilitarianism a person will do the right thing if the consequences of their actions are good. But with this reasoning if the actions are not good but the consequences happen to be good the act may be believed that this is a good ethical act. Police officer have a duty to do and lawyers ethically act good to make their client just as happy.

Proponents of deontological ethics do not consider consequences as important when determining whether an individual is moral or immoral. Morality is based solely on the person’s action. Several ethical theories are deontological theories.