Difference Between Utilitarianism And Deontology

In its simplest form, utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy in which if the end result brings happiness then it is right and if it brings unhappiness then it is wrong. Whereas, deontology, simply stated is not about the results but that the actions conform with societies moral norms.

To support my stand, I will use the Principlism approach articulated by Beauchamp and Childress (B&C) in their textbook principles of biomedical ethics (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). B & C thoroughly develop and advocate for four principles that lie at the core of moral reasoning in health care: respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice. The reason behind selecting this approach is because these Principles derived from the “common morality” and thus, they are universally binding in all healthcare settings everywhere. The principles are binding regardless of the ethical theory one adhere to or believe in, because everybody recognizes the importance and the strength of the common morality. Consequently, the Principlism approach provides a means for proceeding with ethical analysis even when persons disagree in theoretical matters.

The precedence of personal autonomy in healthcare is a distinctive characteristic in Western medicine that allows people to be free from controlling interference by external factors. Modern bioethicists believe that patient autonomy should not be exhausted, but rather prioritized over all other bioethical principles, which are beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice (2008, Tsai). Though patient autonomy is a cornerstone in Western medicine and bioethics, the extent to which patient autonomy should be exercised remains undefined. Currently, patient’s desires are deemed “autonomous” when assessed under a certain procedural criteria; however, different views on how these criterias can be formulated leads to ambiguous moral conclusions on patient

On the topic of the conception of right action, deontologists and utilitarian’s had opposing views on what makes an action just. I argue that Bentham’s view of determining right action, that an action is right if it has the tendency to maximize pleasure, is the optimal one because we are not able to determine the motivations of others with absolute certainty.

Utilitarianism vs. Deontology A better way to understand utilitarianism and deontology is to see it through a scenario with a moral dilemma. The scenario includes bombs, death, torture, and a moral dilemma. Utilitarianism is a theory in which decisions should be made in optimizing the greatest amount of pleasure over pain and the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people (Merriam-Webster). In the scenario a police chief desperately throws out the idea of torture of a crazy man who hid bombs all over the city and will not give them information. Following utilitarianism, the police officer would be making the most moral choice because he will possibly get the information he needs and help save thousands of lives.

The ethical theories of deontology and the branches of utilitarianism; act and rule, display similarities and differences within the meanings of both. Act utilitarianism theory is the focus on the outcome of an act. Rule utilitarianism is the method of an individual’s actions. The theories of deontology and utilitarianism both present moral rules and values. Deontology focuses on the motives of an action, whereas utilitarianism centers more on the end result. The Act utilitarianism theory is more effective by judging the morality of an action based on the consequences of its outcome.

From a Utilitarian perspective, AB’s denial may be a necessary condition for ethical condition moral action outcome. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialist moral theory that emphasizes maximization of utility as its primary goal. With regards to John Stuart Mill’s Harm principle, Human rights have limitations in that if actions by an individual cuase harm to themselves or others, society has jurisdiction over said actions. As such, in denial of AB’s request to operate motor vehicle, this limitation placed on AB is justified by the resulted prevention of harm to society i.e. potential motor vehicle accident in that the prevention maximizes societal utility. From this perspective, denial of AB’s request is arguably a moral action.

Deontological Ethics is an Approach to Ethics that decides goodness from looking at acts, or the standards and obligations that the individual doing the demonstration strove to satisfy. This is in Contrast to Insignificant, in which rightness is in view of the Consequences of a demonstration, and not the demonstration without anyone else. In Deontology, a demonstration may be viewed as right regardless of the fact that the demonstration creates a terrible result, in the event that it takes after the standard that one ought to do unto others as they would have done unto them", and regardless of the possibility that the individual who does the demonstration needs Virtue and had an awful goal

Throughout life, individuals are often faced with a multitude of moral dilemmas which can be difficult to assess given the factors of the situation and consequences, based on what is right and wrong. In this paper I will be assessing the Trolley Problem in relation to Utilitarianism and Deontology and will conclude which theory is the best way to behave given the situation. In the first paragraph, I will begin by discussing the Trolley Problem followed by the next paragraph’s which will explaining how Utilitarianism and Deontology would approach the situation. Furthermore, I will be discussing which theory I believe is right in regards to the best way to behaving in society, given the possible outcomes of the problem. Since the moral issue of killing and letting die are close in hand, Deontology is the only explainable way to behave because this theory approaches all situations in regard to what is fair and acceptable for all, while Utilitarianism takes an approach that degrades humanity and differs from person to person.

Consent is a highly discussed topic amongst all working fields within Australia. Consent is the art of agreeing this can be portrayed in three different ways; implied, verbal or written. Implied consent is often given for simple or routine procedures with common knowledge and a broad understanding of the procedure, implied consent is often conveyed by actions. Verbal consent is expressed verbally. Finally written consent is provided in writing and is the most common kind of consent and this is used as documentary evidence. All elements of consent have to be made to become valid this includes; voluntary decision, correct and comprehensive information regarding conditions and treatments, decision must relate to the specific treatment being provided and finally the person whom is giving consent has the capacity to do so. Autonomy is something that is often closely related to consent and this is respecting the privacy and rights of others to choose, protecting confidential information, obtaining consent for interventions and providing accurate advice. Everyman’s person being sacred, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the slightest manner (Fray, Spar, & Yale Law School, 1996). Ethical and legal complications arise when autonomy and consent are not properly applied. This case study will identify legal issues including the notion of consent and ethical issues mentioned in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights in the case of Bruce.

Utilitarianism and deontological theories have been known to be critical the organizational transformation of law enforcement. These theories or ethical perspectives help law enforcement officers to; identify and define problems, forces them to think systematically, encourages them to view issues through many different points or positions, and provides them white decision-making guidelines. Therefore, utilitarian and deontological ideological theories help guide law enforcement’s behavior and practices by making morally and ethical decisions, particularly when officers are being faced with ethical dilemmas.

Deontology is a famous meta-ethical theory practiced among famous philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, W.D. Ross, Sissela Bok, and many other philosophers and influential we know. Deontology is focused on “duty” based actions. The entire theory is focused on the duty of people and how they submit to the duty that they have. It is simply defined as, duty is the basis of morality. It is also focuses around looking at the consequential effects of a particular action that is done. Because of the belief system of deontologists, I strongly believe that deontology attains the strongest and most easily defendable argument of all the meta-ethical theories. Opposing, utilitarianism is the belief system that morality is doing what will bring happiness to the most people. Amongst all the meta-ethical theories, utilitarianism has to have the weakest argument, because by having mindset is not exactly how society can reasonably function.

Throughout time, philosophers have asked the question: what is morally just? Immanuel Kant, the founder of Deontology, along with Jeremy Bentham and James Mills, the founders of Utilitarianism, all attempted to answer this question. Bentham and Mills’ Utilitarianism stresses maximizing pleasure and happiness in the world over pain and unhappiness. In contrast, Kant’s Deontology focuses on honoring duties and obligations. A moral action must be “considered right and good by most people” (Merriam-Webster). The way Kant proposes that one achieves happiness is overall superior to Utilitarianism because, by following Kant’s philosophy, one observes the majority 's view of just action. Deontological philosophers believe in duty ethos because from an overall perspective it proves ethically just. The trolley scenario, the basics of both Utilitarianism and Deontology, and the flaws of Utilitarianism allows one to see the superiority of Deontology.

In his book Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill presents his exposition and his major defenses of the philosophy of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, a theory in ethics developed by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, focuses on a concept of utility that focuses on deciding if actions are morally right or wrong by analyzing the pleasure and pain they cause. In other words, if an action causes primarily pleasure for all parties, then it must be good and right; however, if it causes pain for the parties involved, then it is bad and wrong. In his book, Mill expands on Bentham’s original ideas and presents some of his own ideas and nuances. In this paper, I will present Mill’s concept of Utilitarianism and some of his defenses of it, relate it to our modern society, and offer my own thoughts on the theory.

Other people believe that if you don’t say anything it will go away. A lot of kids think that the bully will move on to someone else. It has been proven that if you do nothing the bullying gets worse and worse. The bully thinks you are weak and try to get more of a response from you. Bullies will continue to try to humiliate you to make themselves look good. The other kids around you are just as afraid because they do not want the bully to come after them. So no one stands up to the bully out of fear that there is no help from the adults in charge, other students or parents. So silence is usually the way a bullied person takes. However, they should really try to find ways to avoid the situation. According to Safe2Tell “people who are