Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
As advanced by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, it is a system built entirely on the effects or consequences of an action, regardless of the intentions. This makes it quite clearly the opposite of deontology; according to deontological ethics, telling a lie is wrong even if it saves a million lives. According to utilitarianism, even doing something purposefully bad would be good if it accidentally had a good effect. In order to measure the morality of an act, its total utility -- the overall effect it has on all persons involved -- is determined, and anything that leads to more good than bad is considered ethically correct. Utilitarian ethics is often summed up in the phrase, "the greatest good for the greatest number."
For Bentham and Mill, "good" was measured in happiness, which was also equated with the absence of pain. The specific calculus Bentham developed to measure happiness included intensity, duration, likelihood, extent, and several other descriptive features...
The result was the overall utility of a given act. Each scenario where action is required present many options, and the one with the highest utility would, according to the system of Utilitarianism, be the most moral or ethical action to take, regardless of what that action was. If killing an innocent man caused everyone happiness, it would be moral.
It is very easy to see that there are problems with the utilitarian system. Mill somewhat addresses them by introducing the idea of desire, and realizing that we may put off things that cause immediate happiness to reach long-term goals, such as foregoing a favorite food in order to lose weight. Thus, people would be more prudent then to go around killing innocent men, or their society would eventually become bloodthirsty and full of criminals. Still, judging morality based solely on consequence seems as foolhardy as basing it solely on intention -- a mixture would seem to work best.
The term ‘deontology’ has its roots in the Greek language – ‘deon’ being the Greek word for ‘duty’ and ‘logos’ meaning ‘study/ science of’. Within the context of modern ethical philosophy, the normative theory of deontology involves prohibited, allowed, or ethically incumbent choices. That is, deontology is categorized under those ethical theories which drive and evaluate one’s choice of what one should do (i.e., deontic theories), as opposed to virtue/aretaic
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical framework. The consequences of an action are more important than the motivations behind the action or the action itself. An action has "utility" if it serves the greatest good. The basic principle of utilitarianism is creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people, or the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The ethics of utilitarianism differ from ethical egoism in that
Ross thought that all people should be benevolent and so if lying affects one's benevolence, one needs to decide if lying is better for the sake of benevolence. Ross' non-absolutist take to ethics is preferred because is considers what is morally right in certain situations. In the instance of a Poker game, it is a game that relies upon lying or "bluffing" so it actually does pass Kant's universal law
Deontology vs. Utilitarianism THE RIGHT CHOICE Deontology is an ethical theory, which states actions should be performed according a previously ranked set of values (Johnson, 1996). It states that some rights must not be violated even if it may produce the greatest overall good. It sees rightness as something intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, to the action performed. It is generally attributed to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant on categorical imperatives. Deontology urges
Philosophy: Deontology vs. Utilitarianism In this paper I will discuss why I feel Deontology (Immanuel Kant's philosophy) is more correct than Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill), as applied to a specific issue. First I will give an interpretation of Kant's deontology, and point out the strong and logical points within his arguments; secondly I will offer an analysis of Mill's Utilitarianism, and why I feel Mill's views fall short. Explanation: In Kant's The
The final two arguments aim at establishing whether suicide can even be considered as the rational solution. The avoidance of harm refers to the commonly accepted view that hurting oneself is irrational because life is the most precious possession we own. Nonetheless, this argument seems to weaken if we consider the fact that in case of terminal illnesses, suicide can become harm-avoiding since it ends the pain and humiliation which