Utilitarianism Vs Kantian Deontology

“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

When faced with adversity and difficult dilemmas, people have different ways to figure out what to do; some people make pros and cons lists while other people just go with their gut. Ethical theories like utilitarianism and deontology, can aid people in making these difficult choices. Utilitarianism focuses on the results of your actions, rather than the intent behind them, as the goal of the theory is the create the greatest good for the greatest amount people. On the other hand, deontology follows a strict moral code concentrating on the right or moral action rather than the results it yields. While utilitarianism and deontology focus on different aspects of decision making, the effect and the intent respectively, they often yield the same result; more often than not the more ethical decision leads to the greater result. These ethical theories are both used in Snow Falling on Cedars by David Gunderson where they both agree on the topics, yielding the same results.

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

Morality is a complex subject and ethical dilemmas yield differing opinions and theories that have manifested through time by intelligent philosophers. There were two influential philosophers’ names Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant, who formed differing theories, in an attempt to set a uniform approach to ethical dilemmas and morality. Bentham was a firm supporter of Utilitarian theory; which focuses on overall happiness and consequences of an action (EMP 122). While Kant believed in his own theory that moral rules are absolute (EMP 129). Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics have few strengths and notable weaknesses, thus proving both theories implausible when compared to

Kant’s ethics differs from utilitarian ethics both in its scope and in the precision with which it guides action. In The Categorical Imperative, Kant emphasizes that human autonomy is the essence of morality. He says that one must act not only in accordance to duty, but for the sake of duty However, According to the Utilitarianism, Mill emphasizes that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness. Although the theories of Kant and Mill seem conflicting, they are also similar and both theories are interested in liberty for individuals.

Utilitarianism is the principle that the correct form of action be taken to benefit the greatest number of people. Deontology is defined as the area of ethics involving the responsibility, moral duty and commitment. Both utilitarianism and deontology deal with the ethics and consequences of one’s actions and behavior despite the outcome.

Deontologists believed that good actions are bad without good will, and that motivation only mattered in determining a right action, not the outcome. Oppositely, utilitarian’s believed that only the outcome mattered in determining right action, not the motivations.

Immanuel Kant has been recognized in his significant views regarding moral philosophy and metaphysics. It is his argument that immorality involves violation of categorical imperatives, which is basically irrational. Happiness has been considered by many philosophers as the ultimate ends (Greenberg, 2001). Many people exist and strive for everything in order to obtain happiness. It is the natural human tendency to seek happiness in his life, and claimed by a lot of utilitarian theorists as the most important thing every human being should achieve. For utilitarian, happiness can be obtained through intelligence and greater level of achievements.

Right off the bat, everyone should have a red flag alarming them before acting with such deviation. There are many ethical issues at hand here: the Social Contract, Kantianism, Utilitarianism, and Relativism. In regards to the Social Contract, Thomas Hobbes once stated (a pioneer of the social contract), "The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone." As the commentary illustrated, a teacher could just kill any student which whom the teacher is not pleased with. Life as we know it is a life of survival of the fittest. At war, everyone is, thus why a social contract is needed. For the mutual good, there are laws that prohibit such action. It is a crime to steal in general and it's a white collar crime when a duty of loyalty is broken when you take

Through the readings we have done and in class, we have discussed the moral status of many different actions using the guidelines of different moral theories. I will be focusing on just two of the theories that we’ve covered: the Kantian perspective and the Utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will present the two perspectives and give my analysis of the differences between the ways in which these two theories determine the moral status of an action.

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.

Instagram’s move to make a profit from advertising by changing the terms of service failed to meet the company’s objective and destroyed the trust of the users, the most significant players for the success of the entity. Changing the privacy policy and term of use without informing the 12 million daily users was way beyond an ethical thing to do. To illustrate the argument, the act will be examined using two ethical theories namely, Utilitarianism and Kantianism. Before tackling on these theories, we must understand that Ethics are the moral principles where we base our assessment for what is right or wrong (Birt et. al. 2014) and how such action may affect others (Zhu, May & Avolio, 2010). The belief that such action is morally right or

Teleology, an explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than postulated causes, has found its place in the construction of many systems of morality such as John Stuart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism. In teleological approaches to morality, questions of right and wrong, or the notion what an individual ought to do, are determined by the consequences of a given action. One thinker to reject this idea of consequentialism was Immanuel Kant. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant endeavors to establish a system of ethics that has no trace of the empirical nature of utilitarianism. To him, “the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it and so too does not lie in any principle of

Last semester, I was assigned to write a final paper on Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics for my Philosophy class. I had to study and evaluate the work of two philosophers named Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant. These two philosophers examined the nature of morality a long time ago and they formed two different theories of moral philosophy.

The next stage involves a critical analysis of the just described theoretical systems. We will explore the factors and influences involved in a chosen Case Study where personal influences are involved. Thereafter, we will look into different approaches a Kantian and a Utilitarian would address the issue and the reasons behind. It will be imperative to understand the actual factors influencing decisions under each of the moral systems identified (Lukas 22).