Table of Contents
Determining what is right and wrong can be among the most challenging conquests humans face. We all have opinions which lead us to analyze situations differently, consequently making choices that result in different outcomes. Ethical theories were developed to help guide us in the decision-making process, such as Kant’s deontological theory and utilitarianism. Deontology selects actions based on abiding by our duty to treat human beings as free, rational entities in which we act out of a sense of obligation because it is what we “ought to do” (Schmitz and Shahar 7). This philosophy hovers around the unconditional categorical imperative, which states that we should conform to moral norms set by society as if they were universal maxims (7). A more consequentialist approach, utilitarianism, is based upon the principle of maximizing utility, which produces the largest amount of pleasure by weighing the costs and benefits of an action (4). Though deontology and utilitarianism both work to promote positive change in the world, deontology is a more promising view when applying it in modern society. Following this, I will show how both theories work to gauge morality, why applying deontology to societal issues is more logical and just in current contexts, and how it could be extended to be more fitting for some of the world’s biggest problems concerning humanity today.
Promoting Positive Change
Deontology and utilitarianism both work to encourage constructive action and to prevent suffering by acknowledging that anguish from a lack of food, water, shelter, and medical attention are bad and ought to be prevented. Singer’s famous thought experiment illustrates this: You notice a child that appears to be drowning. To paddle in and save the child would be a simple task but comes at the cost of your clothes getting wet and dirty (68). The question becomes: Do you have an obligation to save the child? A deontologist would apply the categorical imperative and deduce that it is a moral directive to save other people when there is no apparent risk to one’s self. A utilitarianist would arrive at the conclusion that the benefit of saving the child’s life far offsets the cost of ruining one’s clothes, therefore, we ought to save the child. Singer’s main point is this, “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally to do it (68)”. Both theories prove successful at alleviating suffering.
Additionally, applying deontology or utilitarianism can provide women with adequate rights that respect their health and dignity, which encourage overall equality. The drive for gender impartiality relies strongly on Kantian ideas. Women, Poverty, and Population offers a multifaceted approach to respect women as autonomous individuals to make them the objectives of family planning programs whose insights could be enhanced by education (Sen 81-87). The categorical imperative requires that everyone is treated as a free agent equal to everyone else. So, a deontologist would construe that women have a right to be treated as equals and also have a symbiotic obligation to return the favor to anyone they may perceive as different from themselves. Specifically, violating their reproductive rights would be wrong because we have a duty to hold up these woman as autonomous individuals that have needs and must be treated as ends in themselves. From a utilitarianist perspective, it would be correct to assume that discrimination against women is wrong because it brings about great pain to those experiencing it, deeming it as immoral. Therefore, a utilitarianist would advocate for equality for the equal consideration of interests with the goal of reducing marginal utility.
127 our experts are availableright now
Justice for All
On the other hand, utilitarianism oftentimes focuses solely on the outcome of an action. For instance, if we took Singer’s approach to prevent suffering then the affluent would have to give maximally (69). But, what if the benefits of the loss of income of wealthier people due to donations were to outweigh the gains captured by others? Then the cost benefit analysis would be negative, and the utilitarian reasoning would crumble. This proves that the method used to calculate the costs and benefits of an action is particularly time consuming with variable effects, whilst deontology gives us little grey area when assessing the morality of an action.
Furthermore, utilitarianism can violate individual rights, since if the happiness of the majority is increased enough, then that could justify inflicting pain on a few. Take “The City of Happiness” as a classic example of a picturesque utopian society that is flourishing at the expense of a child locked in a cage (Sandel 40-41). Violating a child’s rights and having him suffer so the rest of the city can prosper can be seen as an action unworthy of moral permissibility. Thus, deontology provides a more precise method of determining whether someone is being used as a mere means. It not only promotes individual rights, but the idea of a universal law also encourages high levels of personal responsibility and self-respect. Instead of trying to mend society at the expense of a child’s life, deontology works to harmonize society, which makes people more virtuous since they are always acting upon what is “right”.
Likewise, utilitarianism can be seen as treating an individual as an object to succeed with morally insensitive intentions. In The Case for Animal Rights, Regan proposes that utilitarianism is an aggregative theory treating sentient beings as vessels, instead of considering their intrinsic value (132). He demonstrates this through an example where he kills his Aunt Bea in order to bring the best result to the most people. By killing one person he gains tremendous wealth of which he intends on donating a large sum to a local children’s hospital. By utilitarian deduction, this is morally permissible for bringing the maximum pleasure to the majority. Clearly, utilitarianism only takes consequences into account and not overall intent. However, a deontologist would cringe at this result. They would recognize that we ought to treat people with respect no matter what their past was, or their future intentions are. Since deontology focuses on duty and draws such a clear distinction between what is “right” and “wrong”, it is the more promising philosophy for supporting fairness for each individual, which contributes to the overall justice in a society.
While deontology is favorable over utilitarianism, this is not to say it is the perfect philosophy. In today’s society environmental problems are becoming increasingly complex. The environment and its constituents must be taken into consideration when making decisions on how we should live. For instance, a major objection to deontology is how it only considers finite, rational beings as worthy of respect, which only includes indirect duties to animals. Regan argues in The Case for Animal Rights that Kant’s claim of intrinsic value should be extended to encompass animals because they have dignity due to their preferences (134). He states, “Inherent value, then, belongs equally to those who are the experiencing subjects of life (133).”
While Regan makes a compelling argument for animals, perhaps deontology could be extended to biotic systems without having to rely on the idea they have preferences and interests. It is conceivable that we ought to respect animals as ends in themselves because the survival of humanity depends on its ability to coexist with animals. If the fact animals are sentient beings with preferences isn’t enough, then we need to recognize that our existence has thus far been counterproductive and if we want our species to persist, we must exploit our recourses in a sustainable manner. This idea appears to be extremely anthropocentric, but as a society that tends to put humans above all else, it is exactly what we need in order to exploit our finite resources conscientiously. If extended to have consideration for biotic systems, deontology is the most promising philosophical theory that can be adequately applied to the world today.
