Introduction Over the years, people have been guided to act by moral principles, which have gone a long way in reducing the number of conflicts in society. Using moral principles, individuals can choose what is wrong and right. Utilitarianism is concerned with attaining results that are better than actions. The theory of utilitarianism argues that people should utilize opportunities when they are happy to produce good outcomes for their communities. On the other hand, deontology is based on well-defined structures of rules, moral principles, and thoughts. The theory of deontology holds that actions and outcomes of actions should be ethical. This paper argues that deontology principles could be used to provide a stronger platform on which critical decisions are made in society. Arguments and conclusions The assumptions and moral obligations that are contained in the deontology theory were proposed and supported by Kant, but the philosopher has been opposed and supported by many scholars. Regardless of the extent to which some people are opposed to the applications of moral principles, which should be consistent with the scriptures of God, they are used to produce the best results in communities. It is worth to note that only morally acceptable ways of actions can produce unique results. Thus, it would be meaningless to adopt immoral actions to yield some results. Duty is an essential concept of deontology, which implies that persons should examine morality by evaluating the types of their activities rather than the goals that they would wish to achieve in the short-term and long-term. Individuals have no powers to control the future, implying that there should be a shift from a focus on the effects to duties. In most cases, we are evaluated on the basis of our actions, which are based on our willingness to act and controls used, rather than our achievements. Kant held that, although our actions’ effects do not matter, it is always prudent to realize that ethical evaluations of our actions are essential. For instance, human beings do not have a moral duty to kill, meaning that society has always viewed actions that kill people, such as murder and manslaughter, as immoral actions. This can be better illustrated in a situation in a hospital that needs fast and critical decisions. There are ten patients in the hospital that require organ transplants for them to survive. Three healthy men visit the healthcare facility to have their regular medical checkups. The three men could donate their organs to save some of the patients in critical conditions, which could be viewed from the perspective of maximizing the good. However, according to Util, it is not acceptable to harm a person so that another life might be saved. In fact, it is ethically wrong to kill an individual with the goal of saving the life another per ofson. Although deontology does not support the action of killing one person and saving another life, utilitarianism could advocate that the three persons should be killed to save the lives of the ten patients, who are critically ill. Thus, utilitarianism cannot be practiced in a community that upholds human rights and morals. Universal law is an impor