Introduction
Two essential ethics theories are attempting to justify and specify ethical practices and norms namely the utilitarianism and Kantian deontology. The former, sometimes referred to as consequentialism represents a moral philosophy established and updated in the contemporary world in the works of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) together with Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) ( Browning, 2015). It is fundamental to note that utilitarianism is necessarily a philosophical approach which emphasizes on the general happiness and reducing injury and harm, and therefore not concerned with methods or ways that should be put in place to ensure satisfaction is attained. However, in the end, happiness is sought, in what can be termed as the end justifying the means. This means that the founders of the theory focused on the outcome of an activity. On the other hand, Kantian deontology emphasizes how individual acts and should behave without taking into considerations the results and consequences of the action ( Kahane, 2015). On this note, the paper compares and contrasts the theories of utilitarianism and Kantian deontology while also considering particularism in case of both cases.
Utilitarianism vs. Kantian Deontology
There are a couple of instances of utilitarianism. But mostly, a practical approach to morality means that no ethical act, for instance, an action of stealing or that such as keeping promises is inherently right or incorrect. Instead, the correctness or incorrectness of an action or regulation is comparatively a matter of the total immoral good including preference, happiness, wellbeing, information, and satisfaction of personal wishes that come about as the ramifications of doing that act or adhering to that directive. In general, as per the utilitarianism theory, morality is subject to the immoral good that emanates from ethical activities and regulations, and moral responsibility is contributory, not basic. The approach provides that ethics is a way to an end; it is in zero way a conclusion in itself. This is to say many ethical philosophers alongside theologians have found it imperfect. One fundamental issue is that the utilitarianism theory if espoused, validates as morally correct actions that are considered wrong ( Mandal et al., 2016). For instance, utilitarianism can be applied to validate punishing a guiltless person or subjugating a petite group of individuals if such activities result into a maximization of ramifications. Nonetheless, these actions are considered immoral notwithstanding of how successful they may be for the most significant group.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
For such and other explanations, numerous thinkers have encouraged another form of moral theory namely the Kantian deontology. Kantian deontology works according to the Bible/Kuran, traditional moral law, and instincts from common understanding. The term deontology was attained from the Greek term deon which stands for binding duty. Kantian deontology has least three fundamental facets. For starters, duty is to be offered for its sake. The correctness or incorrectness of an action or regulation is, at least in section, an issue of the fundamental ethical facets of that form of action or rule ( Meyers, 2015). For instance, actions of dishonesty, breaking promises, or killing are fundamentally incorrect, and human beings have a role not to indulge in the actions. This does not imply that ramifications of actions are not pertinent for evaluating them. For instance, a medical practitioner may have a responsibility to benefit a client, and such might need to understand the medical ramifications that would upshot from several therapies to decide what will and would not advantage the sick individual. Nonetheless, outcomes do not make the activity correct, as is the instance with the theory of utilitarianism. But, at best, results assist individuals in deciding the action that is more in keeping with what is already their role ( Kahane, 2015). Consequences support to find what the duty is; they are not what translate something into commitment.
Second, people should be handled as objects of intrinsic ethical value; which means that, as conclusions in themselves and not merely as a little way to some other conclusion, for example, general contentment and welfare. Such a perception is very complicated to validate if individual desserts the religious policy of people being created in the image of the Supreme Being. Yet, justified or baseless, deontological morals mean that human beings are conclusions in themselves with inherent value. In addition, an ethical principle is a definite necessity that is universalizable; which means that it must apply to all people who are in similar moral standing. Moral statements indicate that in case a person desires to maximize pleasure versus pain in this situation, then they should follow some guidelines ( Mandal et al., 2016). This means that ethical statements are necessities or directives that stand for all depictions of the form of action in deliberation, including telling the truth. Ethical statements require people to keep their pledges, including not killing, and stealing among many others.
Merits and Demerits
Utilitarianism presents a robust sense of purpose. By applying a utilitarian perception to look at every choice made, every decision would become very important. Consequently, an individual will start thinking of the activities undertaken in a broader perspective, which will affect more than just oneself. The theory projects a world with elevated happiness. Typically, utilitarians would want everything and all people to be happy in making choices, which could be extremely advantageous since it assists individuals to consider the ramifications of their actions. The theory of Utilitarianism supports making difficult decisions. Individuals naturally face difficult choices, with desires and notions taking over decisions from time to time. But with this philosophy of ethics, people will reason and at last, make the correct choices. Nonetheless, utilitarianism is arguable whether who to determine good or bad ( Meyers, (2015). This theory can lead to failed opportunities. For conditions that require quick decisions, the utilitarianism approach might not operate effectively. The chance to make a proper decision might be lost in the course of calculations. No one correctly understands who has the absolute correct to say what is right or wrong, as every person is wired differently with diverse beliefs on specific things. For instance, while sections of people believe that consuming alcohol leads to happiness, while there are those who would disagree and claim that it is toxic to the human system ( Browning, 2015). When so many decisions are left to morality, problems will arise.
On the other hand, Kant's morality is very forthright and founded on reason, making it available to everyone, duty is a section of human experience, morality does not depend on causes, ramifications or religious laws and the resounding imperative gives the society regulations that apply to everyone and necessitate respect for human life. The approach makes it clear that ethics is doing one's duty and not merely following feelings. Individuals within the society cannot assume their good and for everyone else and this is Kant's corresponding of the Golden Rule. The theory aims at treating all people fairly and honorably. Kant sees people as being of intrinsic value as they are the apparent high point of creation (Kahane, 2015). This implies they cannot be incarcerated or exploited. There is similar treatment as individuals get rid of prejudice which sometimes impacts decision-making. Nonetheless, the main shortcoming to Kant’s model is that it is nonconcrete and not readily applicable. For instance, it informs the type of activities that are good but not the correct thing to do in particular situations.
Pluralism in Utilitarianism and Kantian deontology
Pluralism, in this case, will be taken to consider an individual who believes in both utilitarianism and Kantian deontology in different instances. It is fundamental to note that such individuals will be swayed by the situation on the ground to produce outcomes. For example, such people would turn to utilitarianism in cases the result is the only thing that matters. Nonetheless, the individuals will consider using the Kantian deontology instances where there are better options to attain the results. Such kind of individuals is scarce. Individuals who believe in morals and customary ethics many at times are considered believers of something and therefore desist from hurting other people’s feelings to attain whatever they desire ( Mandal et al., 2016). On the other hand, those who believe in the results and not the means to achieve them do not care if they step on peoples' toes to get what they want. In reality, therefore there are sporadic cases of pluralism as far as utilitarianism, and Kantian deontology is concerned.
Summary
The topic provides readers the discretion to decide on the most appropriate model between utilitarianism and Kantian deontology. When choosing, it is fundamental to consider several elements, for instance, both the negatives and positives of the topic. From this paper, both theories have positive and flip sides. Both methods are correct in one way or another based on an individual's belief. It is worth noting that the Kantian deontology bases its arguments on moral values and the Scripture. On the other hand, the utilitarianism bases its discussion of a broader perception of society. The former aims at attaining results regardless of the approach used while the former is founded on morals and doing what is right for the benefit of others.
References
Browning, N. (2015). The ethics of two-way symmetry and the dilemmas of dialogic Kantianism. Journal of Media Ethics , 30 (1), 3-18.
Kahane, G. (2015). Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment. Social Neuroscience , 10 (5), 551-560.
Mandal, J., Ponnambath, D. K., & Parija, S. C. (2016). Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Tropical parasitology , 6 (1), 5.
Meyers, C. D. (2015). Brains, trolleys, and intuitions: Defending deontology from the Greene/Singer argument. Philosophical Psychology , 28 (4), 466-486.
