Utilitarianism and deontological reasoning in consequentialist ethics

¶ … Good Life

What is Good Life?

The Consequentialism Debate

Utilitarian reasoning is regarded as "consequentialist." The other approach of human actions' analysis is called "deontologist" reasoning. Utilitarian and deontological reasoning have very little in common. They are similar only in the sense that they both attempt to establish which human actions are appropriate and which ones are not. Apart from that, there is no other similarity. The differences arise in their adopted approaches in attempting to establish and distinguish the right actions and behavior from what is wrong (van Staveren, 2007).

As the term implies, judgments of "consequentiality" are founded on the consequences of an individual's actions. Here, an action is categorized as right or wrong based on the results of actions. Its ethics have nothing to do with whatever the individual intended to do. Taking an extreme case, assume that I am driving and I notice a person I truly dislike strolling on the sidewalk. I make up my mind to run him over. He, however, notices me coming and moves out of the way. I unintentionally end up running over somebody behind him who possessed an automatic rifle and was on the way to kill five individuals. In accordance to utilitarianism, since I stopped five people from getting murdered, my action is regarded as good. The fact that I accidentally saved them while attempting to kill somebody else is not relevant; of importance is what actually came about as a result of my action (van Staveren, 2007).

Deontological reasoning, however, assumes the diametrically opposite approach. Here, our actions are either right or wrong based on why we do them. If certain things are done out of good intents, then the action is regarded as morally good regardless of the outcomes. If we think about the case illustrated above, from a deontological perspective, my action would be regarded as wrong. I drove my car up onto the sidewalk; I did that with the intention of killing an innocent individual. The fact that I ended saving five lives by accidentally killing a bad person has totally nothing to do with my action's morality. My action shall be regarded as immoral since I was attempting to do a bad thing (van Staveren, 2007).

Bentham deems that the calculation, comparison, and measurement of pain and pleasure produced by actions is actually possible according to several (seven) criterion. He referred to this as "felicific calculus." This implies that each action we plan to carry out ought to be measured by the quantity of "units of pleasure" it generates, or is anticipated to generate. Amongst the seven groups, the most ethic/correct action shall be the one that provides the highest sum of points (Rachels & Rachels, 2010). Conversely, Mill recognizes the challenges of making these particular quantitative measurements, and the emphasis is altered from "quantity" of pleasure to "quality" of pleasure. He differentiates "lower" pleasures (linked with the body, which produce "contentment") and "higher" pleasures (linked with the mind, which produce "happiness") (Rachels & Rachels, 2010).

In its political beliefs, Utilitarianism bases the government's power and the sanctity of individual rights on their utility, hence giving an alternative to the theories of natural rights, social contract, and natural law. The best type of government therefore turns into a question of the type of governance that has the best consequences; an evaluation which calls for factual arguments concerning human behavior and nature. As an abstract moral principle, Utilitarianism has developed itself as one of the few live alternatives that need to be considered and either accepted or rejected by any philosopher assuming a position of normative morals (Clark, 1992; Hooker, 2000).

3. Political and ethical dimension of existentialism

Essentially, Existentialism as a philosophy stresses personal existence, choice, as well as freedom. The central the idea is that humans describe their own significance of life, and attempt making sensible decisions in spite of actually living a ridiculous world. It concentrates on the subject of human existence, as well as the feeling that there is no explanation for existence. According to existentialism, neither God nor any other magnificent force exists, and thus the only means of finding meaning in life is though embracing existence (Earnshaw, 2006; Flynn, 2006).

Authenticity, on the other hand, is existentialism's core virtue frequently understood as freedom but has a lot to do with honesty. It mostly entails being real to yourself, to your own nature, instead of carrying out the desire of others. Lack of authenticity is regarded as bad faith. An individual is said to be acting in bad faith when they are acting in accordance to some external force, permitting other people to direct their lives and determine who they are, instead of being mainly directed by their own self and being accountable for their existence and actions. This illustrates how the phrases are associated with freedom; freedom is reduced by an act of bad faith, while authenticity opens an individual to freedom (Earnshaw, 2006; Flynn, 2006).

Ambiguity is also quite fundamental to the human condition. Humans are living things placed between god and animal; neither do we have total control over our own lives, nor are we entirely at the mercy of our bodies and nature. We are and are not our past. The past has considerable impact on us, and it would actually be bad faith to overlook that and act like we do not have a past. However, it is also bad faith to bind ourselves to the past and pretend as if we cannot alienate ourselves from it (Earnshaw, 2006). This is actually similar to what we are born into. There exists a constant vagueness amidst the things we are not capable of running, and the segment of our lives and selves that we could run, or even our freedom. Freedom also implies that we are accountable for our choices and values. According to a well-known existentialist saying "existence precedes essence" (Flynn, 2006); we at first solely exist, and our essence is developed all through our lives, implying that we play a role in shaping it and that we are capable of altering it.

Human beings have frequently, in bad faith, overlooked or given up this obligation and freedom. This is due to the fact that both freedom and obligation result to existential worry in humans. Though we wish for freedom, we also wish to surrender it because of our uncertain nature. Anxiety differs from fear in that there is a direct object in fear (we are afraid of a particular thing), while there is no object in anxiety; it is simply a general, unexplained scary feeling which occurs to humans (Earnshaw, 2006; Flynn, 2006).

Humans, with regards to their worries regarding the vagueness of the human condition, have in the past utilized groups of "other" (in regards to race and gender) in an effort to resolve this vagueness. For instance, men tormented women and turned them into objects, eliminating her subjectivity, so that he could be a pure freedom. In so doing, men actually thought that they had erased human ambiguity (Earnshaw, 2006; Flynn, 2006). This particular responsibility for making ourselves also implies that we cooperatively make our own world as well. This is the reason why several existentialists encouraged Marxism. Social discrimination has also been tackled by phenomenology, which is associated with existentialism.

4. Social justice issue: same sex marriage

Two opposing ethical systems, deontology and consequentialism, exist in the space of social justice and eventually collide in this social framework (same sex marriage, union). Conservatives rely on deontological arguments whereas liberals resort to the consequentialist philosophy. The argument on same-sex marriage has been politically successful, however, curiously incomplete. The argument has been successful, not because the complex countering arguments have been taken into consideration and declined, but since those particular claims have not been comprehended. The arguments are based on sophisticated assertions; either regarding what maintains the steadiness of heterosexual marriages or regarding the character and personality of such marriages (Corvino, 2013).

Under-utilitarianism: According to utilitarianism, morality ought to be directed by the outcomes of an action. In the case that good outcomes (like joy) are maximized by an action and the bad actions (like anguish) minimized, the particular action is correct in the sense that we need to do it. In the case that an action results to unnecessary agony, then it would not be right to do it and vice versa. As far as I can tell, homosexual behavior does not result to any considerable harm.

Under the Virtue Ethics theory: According to Aristotle, personal satisfaction and success are the major goals of ethics, and individual that recognize how to live a happy life and have a virtuous character. Aristotle's major interest in ethics could be placed in terms of vice and virtue. He would agree that particular sexual behaviors are virtuous while others are not. If homosexuality is a flaw in somebody's character, then I would be right to suppose that homosexuals are less happy compared to others, and certainly have more mental sickness compared to others as well. In any case, homosexuality has not been found to be related to discontentment or even mental sickness (Rachels & Rachels, 2010). Stoical virtue ethics actually concurred with the belief that our character is related to ethics, however, believed that the most significant aspect of our character was simply a product of our beliefs and reason. For Stoics, any sexual behavior can be caused by wrong beliefs. On the contrary, Stoics acknowledge that pleasure could be a reasonable goal when we objectively become aware of the pleasure's limited significance.

Gay rights adversaries have depended on two approaches. One concentrates on the outcomes: this claim is weak on proof. The other is to argue that irrespective of the outcomes, marriage is naturally heterosexual. The weakness of this claim is that it rapidly shifts from theory to conclusion: unless you actually see marriage, as described in this strange manner, to be inherently good, the argument can't even begin. The most considerate statement of the consequentialist claim has been made by Amy Wax, a professor in the University of Pennsylvania. The argument refers to the perishing of the older American sexual ethic that crumpled rapidly back in the 1960s. The increasing homosexuality tolerance is part of a greater change in sexual ethics, which detaches sex from reproduction (Tybur, Lierberman & Griskevicius, 2009).

The greatest issue for the non-consequentialist claim is consistency. It is not sure if it can prove that the inherent goodness of sex is instantly: (1) obtained from its reproductive nature, and (2) existent in the coitus of married heterosexual couples that know themselves to actually be fertile, however, not existent in any other sexual act apart from heterosexual marital coitus. Back on 6th of November 2012 during the Presidential election, Main, Maryland, and Washington, each by majority rule, endorsed homosexual marriages. Without forgetting Columbia, a total of nine states have endorsed and acknowledge homosexual marriages. Additionally, eight states have approved and acknowledged civil unions. Themes of principalism and utilitarianism can be seen in this decision, however, quite a number of ethical and moral injustices continue to occur and be prevalent even now (Uhlmann, Zhu & Tannenbaum, 2013).