Difference Between Utilitarianism And Deontology

Decent Essays
With regard to ethical consideration, response to AB’s request is a matter to resolve the dichotomy of AB’s autonomous, inviolable dignity, tempered by legislative public safeguards.
A deontologist may argue that denial of AB’s request impedes his ability to express autonomy of the will1. Deontology – a duty-based ethical ideology – promotes the maxim that individuals carry inalieble rights, which are considered violated if that individual is treated as a means to an end. denial of AB’s certificate for the purposes of public safety acts as such means to an end] As such, denial of AB’s request could be considered hinderance of AB’s liberty standard, equivalent of his peers, that is to operate a motor vehicle. In this sense, such action is argueably
…show more content…
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialist moral theory that emphasizes maximization of utility as its primary goal. With reference 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. In essence, the denial of AB’s request to operate a motor vehicle is justified as this limitation results in the prevention of harm to society – a potential motor vehicle accident – and this prevention maximizes societal utility from all possible choices. From this perspective, denial of AB’s request is arguably a moral…show more content…
Principalsim defines four tenets to guide moral actions: Autonomy, Beneficence, non-maleficence and Justice. Much like the deontological view, the autonomy principle may favour a decision to issue AB’s certificate, to uphold the moral obligation for the respect of individual dignities. However, I argue this contrasts should be is overruled in consideration of the beneficence and non-maleficence] principles. Denial of the request acts within the best interests of the patient that is safeguard of AB’s life – which is in accordance with the beneficence principle. As well, similar to the the utilitarian rationale, I would contend that denial of AB’s request, is to “above all, do no harm” – in accordance with non-malefecence – that is, to prevent harm to the public. With appeal to utilitarianist theory, the prevention of harm to both AB and the public are of the greatest moral outcome, which demonstrates a principle-based ethical argument for AB’s denial of
Get Access