Deontology vs. Utilitarianism: Navigating Ethics in Contemporary Society

Understanding Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Values and Principles

Before college, I had no idea what ethics was, but I often heard the word “ethical” used in daily conversation. To me, ethics was a synonym for fair/just, and I really did not know what ethics was even remotely about. Obviously, that interpretation was extremely vague and did not capture the complexity of ethics. Barbara MacKinnon and Andrew Fiala, in their book, Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, explain, “We tend to think of ethics as the set of values or principals held by individuals or groups,” which helps to simplify the branch of philosophy.

Within the study of ethics are ethical frameworks, which analyze how people determine what is good and bad, right or wrong, and form opinions on polarizing topics. Two ethical frameworks that I will be comparing and contrasting are deontology and utilitarianism to examine the effectiveness of each when addressing contemporary issues in society. Both frameworks analyze the relationship between intent, actions, and outcomes.

Deontological Ethics: Principles Over Outcomes

Deontology is the ethical theory that “focuses on right actions and right intentions while downplaying the importance of the goods or benefits that are produced by these actions.” Doing the right thing is a person’s responsibility, and the idea of the right thing relies on the motives behind an act. Also, deontology stresses the idea of a universal moral code to which everyone has a duty to adhere. For an action to be considered ethical, it must apply to everyone. If it does not, then the action cannot be deemed ethical.

A strength of this ethical framework is that it sets a universal standard of ethical obligations that are not contradicted when turned into a maximum. An easy example is the classic question of whether you should lie to protect someone. When one evaluates the act of lying through the lens of the deontology framework, the ethical answer would be ‘no.’ This is because if lying to help someone becomes a universally accepted principle, there would be very little truth left in the world. If one applies this theory of thinking to every ethical problem, it creates an obvious answer of whether or not the act is ethical, no matter the outcome.

Another strength of this framework is that it looks at all human beings as equal. The framework creates objective guidelines for making moral decisions that every human being is to follow, with no acceptions. That is helpful because it gives value to moral absolutes that do not change. Lastly, a strength of deontology is that it focuses on one’s own actions and intentions instead of looking at the results or “external circumstances that we cannot control”. People should not be held accountable or praised for things that are not in their control. That way of thinking puts more value on the person’s thoughts and reasoning for their action than the other person’s perception.

A weakness of deontology is that there are no set limits on what can be reasonably universalized. What is reasonable or morally okay to one person may not be the same for others. Also, not all things that are universalized could not be moral and, at the same time, not contradict the previous set of guidelines of deontological ethics. Another weakness of Kant’s approach is that it takes emotions and humanness out of morality. Morality does have some ties to personal behaviors and perceptions, so completely disregarding emotion is difficult in practice. A person whose intentions were moral had to use his or her own judgment to come to that conclusion. So, not acknowledging human emotion when considering something to be ethical is not valid.

Utilitarianism Ethics: The Pursuit of Maximum Happiness

Next, utilitarianism is the ethical framework that focuses on the happiness of people and uses that as the measurement of morality. Utilitarian ethics believes that “actions are morally better or worse depending on whether they produce pleasure or pain or, more abstractly, on how they affect human well-being and happiness. This framework is pretty straightforward compared to deontology because it is based on a single principle, happiness. Since the idea of creating a happier life is common for most people, a system that’s the sole focus is maximizing that happiness is extremely inviting.

A strength of utilitarianism is that it is a form of consequentialism which is the idea that “focuses on the consequences of actions.” This is a strength because it is natural for human beings to weigh the consequences of specific actions and make the choice to do them. Determining ethical behavior through the lens of utilitarianism is easy and somewhat natural because the thought process used is common sense to most people.

That being said, it is easy to demonstrate this framework in real life because it is human nature to believe this way of thinking is fair/ just. Another strength of this ethical framework is that it makes people think beyond their own personal point of view. It is easy to judge an action based on how it will affect you, but your actions do not solely affect your life most of the time. When making an ethical decision, “everyone affected by some action is to be counted equally. We ourselves hold no privileged place, so our own happiness counts no more than that of others.”

In contrast, utilitarianism calculates the amount of happiness an action could create using different variables like intensity or duration, which is very complex, and “no one can consider all of the variables that utilitarianism requires us to consider.” This weakness is important to think about because one can never know all the consequences of a specific action, thus meaning the choice may not always be as clear as it is presented to be. In this case, the person who is deciding between the possible actions will be inclined to choose the results that, in their opinion, would generate the most happiness.

Another weakness is that the ethical framework can be used as an excuse for unjust actions for the sake of the happiness of others. A good example from the book that was used to criticize utilitarian ethics is, “Or could we not justify on utilitarian grounds the killing of some individuals for the sake of the good of a greater number, perhaps in the name of population control.” The amount of happiness or evilness an action creates is not the only reason why it is morally wrong or right. There are certain actions that are just wrong, and utilitarianism ignores that as long as the outcome is positive for the majority of people. The end justifying the means is a dangerous way to think because it undermines rules and regulations that keep society in order.

Comparing Deontology and Utilitarianism: Contrasts and Common Ground

However, these two frameworks dramatically differ in the process used to determine whether or not an action is ethical. Deontology focuses on the intentions behind an action and the action itself to ensure it is good or proper. In other words, the framework “emphasizes the right over the good.” The good is the results that are produced by the said action. In contrast, Utilitarian ethics only focus on happiness or good that results from an action. Similarly, both deontology and utilitarian ethics look beyond the personal point of view when determining an action’s morality.

Utilitarianism believes the ethical option is the one that produces the most “happiness or pleasure of all who are affected by an action or practice that is to be considered.” So, when making an ethical decision, the person must look at things from others’ points of view. Also, deontological ethics heavily enforce duty and moral standards, which are things everyone must live by. To consider an action to be ethical,” it must be something that I can consistently will or accept that all others do.” Both frameworks, when evaluating principles and actions, do not judge them from a personal point of view and think about the greater good. Since these frameworks’ methods of determining an action or principle are ethical, they tend to differ in opinion on real-world issues.

Ethics in Real-world Scenarios: Navigating Complex Moral Challenges

Therefore, after analyzing both utilitarian and deontological ethics, I have come to the conclusion that deontological ethics is the most helpful in working through real-world issues. Deontological ethics holds every human being as equal and holds everyone accountable to the same duties and moral standards. To me, it is the easiest to work through and makes the most sense because there will always be a “justified” reason as to why someone should not follow the rules or break laws, but that does not make it right. For instance, the act of abortion is unethical from a deontology standpoint because it is wrong to end a life. Though I am Pro-Choice, I do still agree with the fact that abortion is not a moral act no matter what, but it should be a woman’s choice to deal with that decision.

Another example would be theft; a poor person stole expensive medicine in order to live. Though the company would not take a hard hit, it is still wrong to steal, no matter why or how it will affect others. It may seem harsh, but with no order of things and a universal code of moral conduct, I believe the world would fall apart. Also, it is unfair to pick and choose whose justification is better, and it is like comparing struggles; no matter who wins, both are still struggling. This ideology reminds me of the old saying, “Do unto others as you would want to be done to you.” If you do not believe it is right for someone else to do it, you should not be doing it.

References:

1. MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. Cengage Learning.