KANT’S DEONTOLOGY VERSUS MILL’S UTILITARIANISM
~Are ethical actions to be judged by a good will or a good outcome?
Several theorists have risen to explain
and give an account of what guides morality among individuals. Morality has it
that individuals are guided by morality to ascertain that which is right or
wrong. Moreover, it guides individuals to do what is best for their conscience.
It is within the discretion of a person to decide the school of thought to
follow regarding shaping up their morality (Suikkanen,
2004). Among the schools of thought, the
present is the systems of utilitarianism and deontology that shape up how
individuals judge ethical actions. In
the paper, I will argue that their result or consequences should judge moral
actions.â€
Immanuel Kant’s deontology theory on
ethics or morality depends heavily on scriptures. These may refer to the rules,
intuition as well as the moral laws that guide an individual (Kant, 1785). The
theory is based on Greek words “done†and “logos†that simply mean the study of
duty (Brook, 2007). It advocates that both the actions and the outcomes that
follow ought to be ethical. It goes further to point out that the morality of
the actions has greater weight, and the consequence of a wrong action does not
necessarily make the outcome the same. Deontology identifies that the line
between good and evil is very thin, but it all depends on the universally
accepted approach to morality (Brook, 2007). Therefore, at determining
morality, the individual should consider the situation from both angles without
compromising the outcomes.
Kant asserted that the highest good
must be one that is intrinsically good and at the same time has no form of
qualification. He concluded that the one thing that is truly good was good will
of an individual that may be chosen out of the feeling of moral duty (Brook,
2007). It is this that led to Kant’s
development of the concept of Categorical imperative. He defined imperative as
any proposition that declares a particular action or lack of action to be
necessary (Kant, 1785). According to the categorical imperative in deontology
theory, an action is absolute and, therefore, is an unconditional requirement
that exerts its power in every circumstance. It is this that further reinforced
the taking of the theory as one that follows duty. Therefore, the categorical
imperative is a principle that is good in it, and it is mandatory to obey it in
all situations reinforcing the necessity of following the moral laws set in
place (Kant, 1785). Additionally, Kant insisted that if an action despite its
outcomes is not done with the sole motive of duty, then it loses its moral
value and, therefore, losses its meaning. It is this that makes the categorical
imperative principle the fundamental rational principle of moral reasoning.
Utilitarianism is recognized for being
one of the most influential and persuasive approaches to ethics in the general
history of philosophy. It was articulated from proto-utilitarian positions and
developed further by John Stuart Mill (1863). It is the idea that the moral
worth of a given action is determined by its contribution to the overall
utility in maximizing pleasure or happiness as is summed among all individuals.
Therefore, the total utility of all people is the one that is important
according to this theory. The greater happiness and pleasure of the most
significant number of individuals is the paramount concern. It is named after
the utility doctrine that is a measure in economics of the relative
satisfaction from, or even the desirability of the utilization of goods. It is
this that makes Unitarianism more of a quantitative and reductionist approach
to the issue of ethics (Mill, 1863). It starts right from the basis that
pleasure and also happiness are internally valuable and that pain or even
suffering are intrinsically non-valuable and that anything that affects the
life of an individual only acquires its value if it results in the happiness of
preventing the suffering of a person. Therefore, such acts are the means to an
end. The vast focus on pleasure and reduction of suffering as the ultimate
goals of moral decisions makes the theory a form of Hedonism and, therefore, is
sometimes referred to as Hedonistic Utilitarianism.
The theory also believes in that the outcomes
of a given action have greater value as compared to the action itself. They are
on the premise that the end justifies the means. It also further asserts that
it is within an individual’s moral compass to take advantage of any situation
to maximize pleasure or reduce the suffering of the majority of the people.
Therefore, utilitarianism is very much reliant on consequentiality (Mill, 1863).
The theory asserts that pleasure and
pain can be quantified and, therefore, measured and as a result, utilitarianism
uses a form of utilitarian calculus to calculate the intensity and extent of
pleasures and or pains that an action would lead to if one is to take it up. In
measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham, a major proponent of the theory, would
consider the intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty as well as the
farness or nearness of the pain or pleasure. It is this that utilitarianism
would use to reason before taking an action (Crisp, 1997).
To determine the pleasures that have
the biggest utility or result to the most pleasure to the majority of the
people, Mill suggested a form of competent judge test. It was an experimental
test whereby an individual that has gone through both pleasures are the only
ones that are competent judges to tell whether one pleasure is better than the
other (Mill, 1863). If the majority of the competent judges prefer one
pleasure, then it is that pleasure that would be taken. Pleasure ranks higher
in utility, and there is a need to be preferred in all cases. The intellectual
pleasures are not taken into the account of the competent judges and Mill left
them from hedonism. According to Mill, intellectual pleasures rank higher in
the quality of pleasures as compared to the physical pleasures.
Deontology fails to allow some acts
that may lead to greater good since it argues that the end never justifies the
means. It does not permeate any harm on any individual as the law states since
it works under the principle of categorical imperative where there is
unconditional following or submission to duty. It means that some actions would
not be allowed despite the positive or better outcome that they may result (Suikkanen, 2004).
For example in a case where a private plane experiences mechanical problems
with a just the pilot in it and is dropping towards a football stadium if not
shot out of the sky. The deontology theory would refute the morality of
shooting down the plane killing the pilot even if it would lead to saving of
hundreds or even thousands of lives that may be lost if the plane crash-lands
on the fully packed stadium. The utilitarianism theory by Mill would recommend
that if sacrificing one life would lead to the saving of thousands of others
then the end would justify the means meaning that it would allow for the
shooting down of the plane.
Utilitarian theorists accuse the
Deontology theory because it is an exaggerated version of what is popular and
that it brings a form of inflexibility ion moral reasoning of individuals.
Furthermore, the deontology theory cannot offer complete moral guidance due to
its reliance on objective and unchanging principles that may result to
conflicts in some cases (Crisp, 1997). The rights and duties of an individual
may conflict due to the obsolete nature of some moral laws since they do not
change with the fast changing times resulting in inconsistencies. It is an
indication that in some cases an individual may have to revise their moral
compass depending on whether the action taken provides more pleasure or
prevents pain for more people and regardless of the actions, the consequences
supersedes the action taken.
The biggest challenge presented by
adopting utilitarianism as the basis of moral principle is that in some cases,
measuring happiness and also comparing it may be difficult due to the diverse
nature of individuals. Pleasure is also difficult to ascertain among people
and, therefore, some actions may result in consequences that some may perceive
as being right while others refute them firmly (Williams, 1973). Some results
or consequences that may be sued to gauge the ethicality of certain actions may
be difficult to draw out the desires and the intentions of the individual. Some
people are motivated by desires or intentions that may not be right but if the
consequences turn out to be right then they are judged as having acted in the
same was like an action that had good intentions. Moreover, it may take too
much time in trying to weigh out the options and the possible consequences of
action (Williams, 1973). Furthermore, at times, the knowledge of the possible
outcomes may be difficult to arrive at and, therefore, one may have to work
with estimates that do not necessarily mean that they are correct further
leaving room for the subjectivity of the approach to ethical actions.
In conclusion, despite the various
challenges that critics may out to, judging ethical actions from the results or
consequences is the most viable manner. It is because human beings are more
inclined to making life easier and also it is natural to act in a way that results
in minimization or elimination of suffering or pain (Williams, 1973).
Furthermore, considering the results or consequences ion the majority of the
people is a comfortable and classic manner to enhance equality and also to
promote the equal consideration of interests. It also supports a form of
thinking whereby one has to consider what is morally right or wrong as a result
of the impact that it may cause. Moreover, it offers a form of flexibility in
judging ethical actions because differing conditions may present different
circumstances. Therefore, moral actions should be judged by their result or
consequences.
Additional articles
THE EFFECTS OF DIVORCE ON FAMILIESBoth in history and in the current generation, families are the basic units that provide security, warmth, and a sense of belonging to every individual. However, in our epoch, divorces have been on the rise and ha...The-effects-of-divorce-on-families …
Read ArticleDonald Trump is a United States presidential candidate while David Cameron is the sitting Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Both politicians were born I well off and affluent families that set the stage for business in Trump’s case and a thr...Comparison-between-Donald-Trump-and-David-Cameron …
Read ArticleIntroduction The fundamental tenets of an effective national security strategy include “clear and realistic objectives, coordinated use of the various instruments of national power, appropriately equipped and trained military forces, well-orc...United-States-National-Security-Strategy:-A-Problem-and-a-Solution …
Read Article