Deontology is a better ethics system than Utilitarianism

Defintions Better: Having good qualities in a greater degree than another moral: an ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong I will start with placing a case now 1)Utilitarianism is a bad system of ethics Accoridng to the utilitarian principle, the correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Sad to say though this priniciple has no eyes to see and no brains to know who are those who have less in life, and those who are disadvantaged and less gifted. Utilitarianism focuses on the majority regardless of socio-economic status. One could claim that government is ethically correct in demolishing some shanties to pave the way for a a beautification project specifically for a single visiting leader. Similarilly driving away native tribes to construct dams. While util sees these as benefits deontology sees these as unfair and unjust because they violate the basic rights of others. Deontology is a non-consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialism ( utilitarianism) believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an anction is not simply dependent on maximizing the good even if that action goes against what is ethically acceptable. For example, imagine a situation four critical conditions patients in a hospital who each need a different organ to survive. A healthy man comes into the hospital for a check-up. According to Util, not deontology the doctor should take that mans organs to save the others. Thus maximizing the good. However, we all know that is ethically wrong, and deontology contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immorral to kill an innoncent depsite the fact of maximizing the good. So, utilitarianism does not respect rights and is too permissive. The end in utilitairsm is destructive because it disregards all morals. It regires great sacrifice, even death as shown above to maximize the good. Since utilitarianism is a consequetalist theory, which means that it stipulates morality from the outcome of an action. This consequentalism is then combinded with hedonism which posits happiness or pleasure as the ultimate worhtwhile pursuit. Therefore since only the consequences of an action matter and only happiness matters. that action is the one that results in the greatest sum of happiness is the moral one. slavery is a utilitarianism outcome. Slavery was good for the majority of the people since they were whites and owned slaves, it however was not so good for the slaves or the blacks at this time period. It violated their human rights but because it resulted in the most happiness it was a moral cause and justified. Under deontology this would not be the case. DEONTOLOGY INTRO INTO CASE Immanuel Kant attempted to discover the rational principle that would stand as a categorical imperative grounding all other ethical judgements. he said Always act in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law. He also said Act as you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of another always as an end and never merely as a means. 1) Duty deontology judges morality by examing the nature of actions and the will of agents rather than the goals achieved. We cannot control the future and that is why we must shift away from consequences to duties. We are praised or blamed for actions within our control and that includes our willing, not our achieving. Kan did care for the outcomes of our actions because we all wish for good things. But kant insisted as far as moral evaluation our actions is concerned, consequences did not matter. Example of you have a moral duty not to kill, so killing is always wrong, so in the above example, it is wrong to kill the healthy man to save the four because killing him is wrong So, deontological ethics is strongest in many of the areas where utilitarianism is weakers. In an ethic system of duties the ends never justify the means and individual human rights are acknowledged and inviolable. 2) Universal Law Always act in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law. Basically if the rule governing our action is not capable of being universalized then it is unacceptable. Unviversability is not the same as universality. So, we must be able to do what we would allow or want others to do. Many would call this the "golden rule" they however are wrong for the golden rule claims if i want my feet tickled i must tickle your feet. This claims that if you cannot will everyone to follow the same rule you are following then the rule is not moral. Such as murder or killing of the innoncent in the story on utilitarianism doctor to save the four critical conditiion patients. WE are saying that it is ok to murder the innoncent. Obivisouly this is wrong and unethical becuase the innoncent should never be murdered. 3) Alternative Formula Kan offered the forumale of the end in itself as Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another always at the time as as and end and never simply as a means. This places mor emphasis on the value of human life as desrving our ultimate respect and thus proposes a more personal view of morality. So, in light of this an example would be Killing myself, would be to treat another person (me) merely as a means for getting money or avoiding pain and violating an imperfect duty by refusing to offer benevolence or just by neglecting my talents would be a failure to treat another person (me) as end in itself. Thus, we should derive our own self-interest as a generalized conern for all humans based off universal law. 4)Formula of Autonomy So, when Kant drew everything together he arrived at the formula of autonomy under whihc the decision to act according toa maxim is actually regarded as having made it a universal law. here the conern with human dignity is combined with the principle of universalizability to produce a conception of the moral law as a self-legislated by each fro all As kant says " a rational being belongs to the kingdom of ends as a member when he legislates in it universal laws while also being himself subject to these laws. he belongs to it as a sovereign, when as a legislator he is himself subject to the will of no other. A rational being must always regard himself as a legislator in a kingdom of ends rendered possible by freedom of the will, whether as a member or as a sovereign. One can conclude that deontological moral theory provides a strong base for making correct decisions and is a better ethics system than utilitarianism