Social ties influence the manner in which individuals interact with each other. From an ethical point of view, human beings are required to act such that their behavior advances the good of the other as well as of the self. However, the emergence of a capitalist system led to a paradigm shift promoting an indifference towards the wellbeing of individuals in the society. The economic man has commodified traditional social ties, thereby leading to deterioration the quality of human relationships. Scholars developed ethical models to, at least, advocate for adoption of human behavior and culture that advances the overall good. Two ethical models, deontology and utilitarianism, have sought to remedy the indifference towards the welfare of human beings advocating for acts that promote the good in the society. Regardless, the foundations of these two models vary and thereby their application. An understanding of the differences between deontology and utilitarianism is, therefore, warranted.
Utilitarianism
Mandal, Ponnambath, and Parija (2016) described utilitarianism as involving acts that promote the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of individuals. Thus, in order to determine the moral and ethical appeal of an act, it is judged based on how well it satisfies the needs of the majority in the society. In support, Baumane-Vitolina, Cals, and Sumilo (2016) noted that “… each conduct is right if it increases satisfaction and happiness, and wrong - if it causes the opposite” and that “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morality and legislation” (p. 110, as cited in Bentham, 1994, p. 142). Mandal, Ponnambath, and Parija (2016) added that utilitarianism is mainly a consequentialist approach whereby the outcomes of an act determine whether it is moral or not. Utilitarianism is an example of teleological ethics, a concept that promotes the assumption that certain acts have to be assessed relative to their respective outcome (Baumane-Vitolina, Cals, & Sumilo, 2016). Thus, in summary, utilitarianism is mainly about the overall good for the majority. The implication is that in the event an act leads to a damaging outcome for a minority, it would not be considered immoral or unethical. Thus, when using a utilitarian approach, one should focus on the likelihood of one’s acts to promote good in the majority.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Deontology
Following an understanding of utilitarianism, an exploration of deontology ethics to identify points of divergence is warranted. Misselbrook (2013) discussed deontology ethics describing Immanuel Kant’s assumptions about ethical behavior. His argument was that human beings are inherently worth and thereby should be treated with respect and dignity. In this regard, morality should be based on one’s duty to ensure ethical treatment of others, the chief premise of deontological ethics. A fundamental aspect to note is that to Kant, outcomes such as pain or pleasure are of little relevance when determining the morality or lack thereof of an act (Misselbrook, 2013). Thomas (2015) stated that deontology ethics is a representation of the categorical imperative, which emphasizes obedience to rules that are in line with universal moral law. He advanced the argument that human beings should act “… regardless of the circumstances and the necessary achievement of desirable ends such as the development of rational faculties that enable individuals to agree to be bound by universal moral rules” (Thomas, 2015, p. 4). The implication under deontology ethics is that “ Morals must come not from authority or tradition, not from religious commands, but from reason” (Misselbrook, 2013, p. 211).
Contrast
Based on the discussion above, it becomes evident that both utilitarian and deontology ethical models have their respective foundations as pertains to their assumptions. A look at utilitarianism demonstrates that the consequences of human behavior are crucial when it comes to deciding whether human acts are moral or not. On the other hand, deontology advances the position that an act should be moral if it is in line with universal moral law. In this respect, individuals should adhere to already existing rules and regulations, which govern human behavior. A major point of conflict between utilitarianism and deontology how human behavior should be judged, that is, whether based on one’s adherence to rules, or through an assessment of the nature of consequences. Understandably, both approaches have faults. Under utilitarianism, an individual is likely to act in a manner that causes harm on a few individuals, while under deontology ethics, a particular rule could cause great harm on some individuals, but saving others.
In order to explore the two ethical systems in question, one could consider a situation whereby a driver swerves a bus thereby hitting a child crossing the road, but saving 10 individuals in the bus. In the same situation, the driver could pull the handbrake to try and stop the speeding bus, but due to high speed, it overturns and explodes thereby killing everyone in it, but saving the child crossing the road. In the first scenario, the driver’s act could be judged as being ethical under utilitarianism. His decision to swerve the bus and hitting the child would be considered moral as it would lead to the greater good, that is, saving the lives of those in the bus. However, if a law dictates that in such a case, the driver pulls the handbrake, but ends up causing the bus to roll over and killing everyone in it, but saving the child crossing the road, this outcome would be considered ethical under deontology. In both incidences, one would question the value placed on human life, whether plural or singular.
Kholberg’s Theory of Moral Development
To determine the degree to which both utilitarianism and deontology can be applied, one ought to explore Kholberg’s theory of moral development. The various stages of this particular theory are moral development is closely linked to cognitive development, the basis of moral development; pre-conventional (children obey rules out of interest and to avoid punishment), conventional (maintaining relationships), and post-conventional (individual rights and universal principles). The main premises under these stages are that morality develops in phases; the stages of moral development cannot be reversed; and that the pursuit of social acceptance and self-realization form the motivation for moral development, which are contingent on one’s active participation in the social culture (Zhang & Zhao, 2017). From this particular model, one can notice Kholberg’s proposition, which is that cognition dictates moral development in human beings. The implication of such kind of an argument is that those considered to be of unsound mind, for instance, cannot make moral decisions or are incapable of promoting ethical conduct in the society. Czyzowska (2017) discussed this particular model in the context of criminal behavior. He noted that moral immaturity is the outcome of halted moral development during its early stages, whereby there is a concomitant lack of perspective. This particular point of view demonstrates that, in the case of offenders, the inability to move beyond one’s egocentrism leads to unethical behavior.
The second phase of the theory in question involves a child’s belief that ethical behavior is that which is in one’s best interest. However, as one enters into stage three, one is exposed to the need to conform and thus develop interpersonal relationships. Zhang and Zhao (2017) noted that “People in this stage judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person’s relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude and the ‘golden rule’” (p. 153). The “golden rule” is that one should do whatever he or she would like others to do for him or her. Thus, one should treat others simply based on one should expect to be treated in return. Therefore, in this particular phase, there is considerable importance about one’s affiliation to others and how interpersonal relationships influence the quality of one’s life. The last stage is mainly about an individual’s realization of his or her individual rights as well as universal principles. In this phase, an individual perceives his or her wellbeing relative to that of others. There is some level of consciousness and sensitivity as pertains to how one’s behavior is likely to affect the welfare of others.
Thus, applying Kholberg’s theory, this would mean that an act is likely to be moral based on one’s evaluation of its inclination towards universal principles, as well as the nature of potential consequences. Therefore, one can argue that the theory merges both utilitarianism and deontology ethical approaches. It promotes the assertion that adherence to universal moral principles and consideration of the consequences of one’s behavior allow for an effective of the morality or lack thereof of an act.
Reflection and Conclusion
From a personal perspective, I fall in the last stage of moral development. I judge my actions based on the impact they have on others, while also on how well they adhere to already established rules. However, there are certain situations where a decision might cause harm on another. In this case, I consider the intent to cause harm. If one does not intend to bring about distress on another, but still does, such behavior could be considered ethical from a deontological perspective. However, it would be charged as moral or not, depending on whether a great number of people were affected.
References
Baumane-Vitolina, I., Cals, I., & Sumilo, E. (2016). Is Ethics Rational? Teleological, Deontological and Virtue Ethics Theories Reconciled in the Context of Traditional Economic Decision Making. Procedia Economics and Finance,39 , 108-114. doi:10.1016/s2212-5671(16)30249-0
Czywoska, D. (2011). Moral development and criminal behavior. Roczniki Psychologiczne , 14 (2), 123-139.
Mandal, J., Ponnambath, D. K., & Parija, S. C. (2016). Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Tropical Parasitology , 6 (1), 5–7. http://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5070.175024
Misselbrook, D. (2013). Duty, Kant, and Deontology. The British Journal of General Practice , 63 (609), 211. http://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X665422
Thomas, A. J. (2015). Deontology, consequentialism and moral realism. Minerva - An Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 19 , 1-24.
Zhang, Q. & Zhao, H. (2017). An Analytical Overview of Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development in College Moral Education in Mainland China. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5 , 151-160.
