Consequentialist Versus Deontological Ethical Systems

What is keen? How does a person decide what is trustworthy? Over the course of history, various thinkers wear tried to develop dodges which guide human persuasion on this question. every(prenominal) of the most important ethical theories ar the normative theories that is ethical theories which turn up to establish authoritative standards by which conduct can be judged. below the general heading of normative, two of the most important schools of ethical thought are the consequentialist and the deontological schools of ethical thought. ( normative Ethics n. d. )Consequentialism is the school of thought which asserts that the object lessonity of a given ventureion is to be judged by the consequence of that action mechanism. If the consequences are close, the action is good. Consequentialism is generally divided into a telephone number of theories, including utilitarianism and ethical egoism. Utilitarianism holds that the even out action is one that produces the super ior good/pleasure (and least pain) for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism has its root in the seminal figures of Jeremy Bentham, backside Stuart swot, and Henry Sidgwick.Classic utilitarians certain(a) a system of rules which is could best be described as indulgent act consequentialism. Their system was consequentialist in that its proponents claimed that an act is morally right if the act ca functions the greatest good. To calculate this, one had to compare the total measurement of good that the act caused, minus the total amount of bad that the act caused. If the interlocking total net amount of good was greater than this net amount of good for any separate act that the agent might get to performed, then the act was good.Their system was hedonistic, in that they claimed that pleasure was the only square good and pain is the only true bad. This system was summed up in the common bidding, the greatest happiness for the greatest number. (Kemerling, 2002 Holl inger, 2002, p. 31-34 prescriptive Ethics, n. d. Lee, 2000, Utilitarianism Sinnott-Armstrong, 2006) As Mill provide this system, utilitarianism was consequentialist kind of than deontological because included certain key points of denial. Utilitarianism denied that the moral honesty of any act dep force outed on anything other than the consequences of the act.This left the utilitarian system open to attack because of the hedonism it advanced. (Hollinger, 2002, p. 34-36 Normative Ethics, n. d. Kemerling, 2002 Lee, 2000, Utilitarianism Sinnott-Armstrong, 2006) From the beginning, critics of hedonism attacked utilitarianism. They criticized John Stuart Mill as arduous to degrade the value of human life to an animalistic level. One of the to a greater extent commonly used arguments was that vulgar acts, much(prenominal) as orgiastic elicit might produce greater transient pleasure than some discipline higher act such as studying fine poetry. (Hollinger, 2002, pp.34-36 Normative E thics, n. d. Kemerling, 2002 Sinnott-Armstrong, 2006)Mill tried to respond to these charges by setting up a government note between lower and higher qualities of pleasure. (Mill, 1861, 56) This did not satisfy Mills critics, who contended that in the end, utilitarianism supported hedonism. Critics find these systems overly technical and confusing, and utilitarianism fosters an end justifies the path line of reasoning. Further utilitarianism does not accept the notion that some acts are absolutely ethically wrong, so that potentially it can be warp into a system shriveing any means.Hollinger, 2002, pp. 34-36 Normative Ethics, n. d. Kemerling, 2002 Lee, 2000, Utilitarianism) Egoism is the view that a moral person is a self-interested person. The primary exponents of ethical egoism, include Epicurus, rapture Smith, and Ayn Rand. Critics charges that the ethical system of Epicurus leads to an austere hedonism. Adam Smiths hidden hand would cause the most productive state of an e conomy to be reached by allowing all of the people in the economic unit each to pursue his own self-interest.Ayn Rand professed a view of rational self-interest, saying that altruism was irrational. (Hollinger, 2002, pp. 28-31 Normative Ethics, 2002 Sinnott-Armstrong, 2006) Deontological ethical theory takes its name from the Greek root deon, nub that which is obligatory. It is ethical theory based on a concept of trading or obligation. Turning then to principled ethical systems, stem from Socrates, who matt-up himself duty bound to accept the ruling of the court in Athens, which had coherent him put to death.From Socrates, one can move ahead to Immanuel Kant, whose philosophical system led to his system of the prostrate lordly Act so that you lot humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, forever as an end, and never as a means only. To develop his Categorical Imperative, Kant looked to the root of morality in humanitys rational capacity and meticulously de veloped a system based on moral absolutes. He argued that these are dependable duties, rules which must be followed absolutely and in every possible situation. (Normative Ethics, n. d. Hollinger, 2002, pp.37-39)Another school of deontological thought is the contractarianistic school exemplified by John Rawls or doubting Thomas Hobbes. This theory asserts that moral acts are those act that all people would go for to if they were completely unbiased. (Normative Ethics. n. d. ) Finally, there are philosophers such as John Locke, also considered deontological, who presented the idea that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights. (Normative Ethics. n. d. ) Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) set forth what is generally accepted as the most advanced theory of deontological or duty-based ethics.Contrary to the consequentialism of Mill, Kants theory firmness of purpose morality by examining the nature of actions and the will of agents rather than the goals sought or the ends achieve d. To describe this in general terms, this deontological theory focuses on the inputs leading to actions rather than outcomes produced by those inputs. This does not mean that Kant did not care what the outcomes of his actions were. Like other men, he wished that things would go well. But Kant insisted that as far as the moral evaluation of our actions was concerned, consequences did not matter.(Hollinger, 2002, pp. 37-39 Normative Ethics, n. d. Kemerling, 2002)In his philosophical studies, Kant tried to establish a rational principle that would stand as a insipid imperative for ethical judgments. He insisted that the imperative, or duty, had to be categorical, not merely hypothetical, or conditional, because true morality could not depend on such things as individual likes and dislikes, abilities, or opportunities. These were mere the accidents of history, and an ultimate principle of ethics had to go far beyond such incidentals.Eventually, Kant developed his categorical imperati ve, which he articulated in several different versions, including Always act in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law. and Act so that you treat humanity, two in your own person and in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means. The first version of the categorical imperative emphasizes an idea important to Kants thinking of the idea that any rule was valid only if it could be applied universally. The second statement of the rule stresses the importance of respecting persons as more important than things.(Kay, 1997)Deontological ethical theories are strongest in the areas where utilitarian theories face the greatest difficulty. Ethical rules based on duty comport the great advantage that the ends can never justify the means. For example, suppose a ruler wished to revive the Roman practice of commonplace crucifixion of criminals. Even if it was determined that the general populace was so caught up in a bloo d lust that the pleasure of the masses who would examine the agonies of the condemned far, far out-weighed the suffering of the victim, the categorical imperative demands that individual human rights be acknowledged and held inviolable.No matter how much the public wants this spectacle, it must be fired from our moral deliberations. (Hollinger, 2002, pp. 38-39 Kay, 1997) Putting Kants categorical imperative into practice, however, has presented a number of serious problems. First, the categorical imperative gives only absolute results. Actions are good or bad. There is no room for gray areas. For example, lying is always wrong even the polite lie or the lie told for nobleman reasons. Second, duties often come into conflict, and the categorical imperative gives no means to resolve these conflicts.Utilitarianism permits a ready comparison of all actions, and if a set of alternatives have the same expected utility, they are equally good. Conflicting duties, however, may pick out that I perform logically or physically incompatible actions, and my sorrow to do any one is itself a moral wrong. (Hollinger, 2002, p. 39 Kay, 2002) Because neither theory is satisfactory in its pure form, I am compelled to use a blend in real life. I follow a utilitarian approach in the sense of trying to maximize the good that I bring to people, but with an awareness that there are categorical situations beyond which I will not go.