Kai Nielsen’s Support of Consequentialism and Rejection of Deontology

When observing the different ethical theories one may believe that although their differences are unique there are similarities in them. One may state that a similarity between utilitarian and deontology is that they both require one to consider their duty something that should be done and considering the character of an individual is if it will be done. If an individual has morals and character he or she may consider it their duty to do what is morally correct.

Overall, deontology is based upon not just by following universal rules or performing what is ought to do, but by respecting human beings as rational beings as well. Deontology judges the ethical motive of an action not by its consequences, merely by the reasoning behind it.

“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 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.

The ethical teachings and values of utilitarianism and Christian ethics are similar in some aspects, yet however are diverse in others. Utilitarianism is a generally teleological ethical system, where the outcome is said to justify the act. The act is considered ‘good’ if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. Christian Ethics, however, can be quite different. Many aspects of its ethics are deontological, for example, the Decalogue and Natural Law. There are other differences and indeed some similarities which will be considered throughout this essay.

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

As per its author of Alienation, Consequentialism, and Society, Railton’s opinion of what a sophisticated consequentialist is:

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism cannot be defended against the injustice objection. Utilitarians may be able to reply to the injustice objection in some cases by invoking one of two replies, the ‘Long term consequences’ reply, in which utilitarians will avoid unjust actions that increase short-term utility because in the long-term they will not lead to the greatest good. The other reply that may help utilitarianism avoid injustice in some cases is the ‘Secondary principles’ reply, where some rule-based principles such as not murdering (because it generally decreases happiness) may avoid injustice. However, I will focus on the ‘bite the bullet’ objection,

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

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

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.

1. Consequentialist moral theories see the moral rightness or wrongness of actions as a function of their results. If the consequences are sufficiently good, the action is right; if they are sufficiently bad, the action is wrong. However, nonconsequentialist theories see other factors as also relevant to the determination of right and wrong.

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.

There are three main terms I will be referencing in this paper. The first is consequentialism. Consequentialism is, at heart, a framework

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.