ipl-logo

Compare And Contrast Deontology Vs Utilitarianism

794 Words4 Pages

What is intrinsically valuable to you? The situation covered in the short excerpt describes a story about a man who has placed several bombs and won't disclose the location of the bombs to anyone. The question is to torture him or not too? According to the situation at hand, you can either make a conclusion based upon Deontology or Utilitarianism, so which will it be? Deontology is the belief that "the moral worth of an action does NOT lie in the consequences of an action," while Utilitarianism is the belief that "moral worth of an action lies in the consequences of that action" (Garcia, Kant Slide 37). Deontology also believes that good will is the only intrinsic good, in contrast Utilitarianism believes happiness and well-being are the only intrinsic good. Both systems have completely different beliefs, which will be exposed in the following comparisons of the situation. First, I will explain the Deontology view point of the scenario. In accordance with Kant's method of thinking you have to start by creating a maxim. The maxim in the situation would be, I will break the law when doing so it will allow me to do much more good for humanity, in order to promote the goal of maximizing public safety. To check the maxim, we have to follow the two principles that fall under the categorical …show more content…

Furthermore, Jeremy Bentham, a believer of Utilitarianism, emphasized the idea of quantity over quality. In conclusion, I believe torturing the man who placed the bombs reveals the possibility of learning where the bombs are placed, therefore through Utilitarian influenced beliefs, I would judge it morally right if it maximizes the majority of people's

Show More
Related
1694 Words | 7 Pages

Alan Dershowitz begins his article “ Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured” by questioning whether one person can be tortured to save the lives of many others. Dershowitz displays both sides of the argument before shifting the question. Dershowitz asserts that the question is not if torture should be used on a ticking bomb terrorist, rather the question is whether the torture is done openly under a legal framework or secretly and illegally. He then simplifies the conflict to the prioritization of values. While the argument that Dershowitz constructs seems to leave very little room for disagreement, there are ways in which to collapse his entire premise.

Read More
697 Words | 3 Pages

Happiness. Happiness can be taken away in seconds. Not even seconds, nor microseconds, maybe even quicker than a nanosecond. Hiroshima, Japan was in a happy state of mind when in a small amount of time it was ruined. Ypung kids see an American B-29 come by and don’t expect much when all of a sudden all anyone can see is black smoke and debris.

Read More
971 Words | 4 Pages

In Michael Levin's The Case for Torture, Levin provides an argument in which he discusses the significance of inflicting torture to perpetrators as a way of punishment. In his argument, he dispenses a critical approach into what he believes justifies torture in certain situations. Torture is assumed to be banned in our culture and the thought of it takes society back to the brutal ages. He argues that societies that are enlightened reject torture and the authoritative figure that engage in its application risk the displeasure of the United States. In his perspective, he provides instances in which wrongdoers put the lives of innocent people at risk and discusses the aspect of death and idealism.

Read More
1055 Words | 5 Pages

In the Ethical Life, by Russ Shafer-Landau, chapters written by Michael Walzer and Alan Dershowitz express their knowledge and opinions on the topics of terrorism and torture. Is it possible to justify and defend such acts? In the chapter “Terrorism: A Critique of Excuses”, author Michael Walzer shuts down four excuses that attempt to justify terrorism. In the chapter, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured?”, Alan Dershowitz defends his theory that it is necessary to torture a terrorist if that means saving the lives of innocent people while protecting their civil liberties and human rights at the same time. Terrorism can never be moral because it violates all “excuses” and torture is an acceptable tactic to save lives.

Read More
1010 Words | 5 Pages

A number of problems surround the second question; the most obvious of which are limited time, the limited capacity of human foresight to calculate the maximum number of happiness, and the inability of the theory to advise on the time frame utilitarianism is to be applied to; how do you know the maximum number of happiness for the next 10 years doesn’t mean greater overall unhappiness in the next 50 years, so what time period should one keep in mind when considering an issue from a utilitarian stand point, 1 year, 5 years, 10, 20? This lack of clarity further adds to the impractical nature of the ideology. There are a myriad number of situations which seem very difficult to resolve without employing utilitarian principles and a very good example is the widespread use of utilitarian principles in bioethics. The best example here would obviously be the famous case of the conjoined twins Mary and Jodie. The facts in front of the court indicated that Mary was the parasitic twin who shared a heart with Jodie.

Read More
1202 Words | 5 Pages

To begin with, this theory relies on moral absolutes which can be defined as actions that are entirely right or entirely wrong. Deontologists cannot consider the consequences of their actions, even if the consequences of a particular action bring about more harm than the act itself. Deontology theory says that certain types of actions are either absolutely right or wrong, but provides no way in which to distinguish which action may be right or wrong and thus duties and principles can conflict (Preston, 2007). For instance,

Read More
1380 Words | 6 Pages

Just the word alone is a great summary of what this philosophy deals with. Kant, the German philosopher who developed deontology, taught that the highest good one could achieve is that of good will. However to achieve this highest good one must be motivated only by a duty or

Read More
1207 Words | 5 Pages

As a Kantian, the ultimate goal is to focus on our maxims and not on how much pain or pleasure the act could possibly produce. So as a result, Kant would argue that Jim should not kill the Indian man, even if it would save the other Indian men. The reason why is because Kant does not believe in using people as mere means, it wouldn’t be considered a conceivable maxim, and it would be betraying a perfect duty. The definition of deontology is having the belief that you do what’s right because you have a moral duty.

Read More
431 Words | 2 Pages

Introduction In this essay, I will be comparing Deontology to Utilitarianism. I will attempt to substantiate why I am justified in arguing that Deontology is a superior moral theory than Utilitarianism. A Discussion of the Main Elements of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a moral theory developed by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1947 – 1832) and refined by fellow countryman John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873).

Read More
866 Words | 4 Pages

Utilitarianism is different from Kantianism because it says that you can perform any action even if it provides some harm to others, but at the end it should provide maximum utility. But on the other end, Kantianism says that you need to treat everyone equal, no one less than the other. They both hold different views but they both are right in certain situations. Utilitarianism and Kantianism conflict in many situations. For example, you have a friend who’s pregnant, but she’s scared to tell her parents.

Read More
1374 Words | 6 Pages

Deontology and Utilitarianism are similar in that the tenets of each aims at promoting the well-being of others by doing good. However, there are several differences between Deontology and Utilitarianism. Deontology focuses on the moral intention of an act.

Read More
1023 Words | 5 Pages

While utilitarian ethics focuses on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number, deontological ethics focuses on what makes us worthy of happiness. For Kant, as for the Stocis and other who emphasize duty, we are worthy of happiness only when we do our duty. As Kant explained, morality “is not properly the doctrine of how we are to make ourselves happy but of how we are to become worthy of happiness.” For Kant, morality is not a “doctrine of happiness” or set of instructions on how to become happy. Rather, morality is the “rational condition of happiness”

Read More
1228 Words | 5 Pages

Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two of the most notable philosophers in normative ethics. This branch of ethics is based on moral standards that determine what is considered morally right and wrong. This paper will focus on Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontology and J.S. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position.

Read More
1515 Words | 7 Pages

Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.

Read More
929 Words | 4 Pages

Deontology is contrasted with teology, which maintains that the rightness or wrongness of acts depends solely on ends or consequences. For deontologists, moral law is not defined by consequences, unlike that of egoism and utilitarian theory; instead, moral law is an end itself. There are four levels of deontological theory namely, basic-principle deontology, general-principle deontology, rule deontology and act deontology. Basic-principle deontology deals with logical priority to basic, fundamental, or ultimate principles. One known proponent of such level is Immanuel Kant, who gave rise to some of the most influential philosophy in Western history.

Read More

More about Compare And Contrast Deontology Vs Utilitarianism

Related Topics

Open Document