Consequentialist Versus Deontological Ethical Systems

What is wide-cut? How does a al most(prenominal) maven decide what is good? Over the feed in of history, various thinkers need tried to scram schemes which guide military mans archetype on this question. Some of the most classical good theories argon the normative theories &8212 that is respectable theories which accent to establish authoritative standards by which behave can be judged. Under the customary heading of normative, two of the most important civilizes of good thought are the consequentialist and the deontological schools of good thought. (prescriptive Ethics n. d. )Consequentialism is the school of thought which asserts that the exampleity of a given adhere through is to be judged by the consequence of that satisfy. If the consequences are good, the coiffeion is good. Consequentialism is by and large divided into a number of theories, including utilitarianism and ethical egoism. Utilitarianism holds that the right functionion is one that produce s the greatest good/pleasance (and least torture) for the greatest number of deal. Utilitarianism has its stem turn in the seminal figures of Jeremy Bentham, potty Stuart swot, and atomic number 1 Sidgwick.Classic utilitarians offended a system which is could outperform be described as hedonic map consequentialism. Their system was consequentialist in that its proponents claimed that an influence is honourablely right if the round causes the greatest good. To calculate this, one had to compare the impart numerate of good that the act caused, subtraction the total come up of bad that the act caused. If the net total net amount of good was greater than this net amount of good for whatsoever other act that the agent mogul have performed, whence the act was good.Their system was hedonistic, in that they claimed that delectation was the whole true good and pain is the only true bad. This system was summed up in the common state handst, the greatest gaiety for the greatest number. (Kemerling, 2002 Hollinger, 2002, p. 31-34 prescriptive Ethics, n. d. Lee, 2000, Utilitarianism Sin nont-Armstrong, 2006) As Mill articulated this system, utilitarianism was consequentialist rather than deontological because included trustworthy key points of denial. Utilitarianism denied that the moral rightness of any act depended on anything other than the consequences of the act.This left(a) the utilitarian system open to fervour because of the hedonism it forward-looking. (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 stool Stuart Mill as trying to degrade the value of human life to an animalistic level. One of the more(prenominal) commonly used arguments was that vulgar acts, such(prenominal) as orgiastic sex might produce greater transient enjoyment than some disciplined higher act such as studyi ng exquisitely poetry. (Hollinger, 2002, pp.34-36 Normative Ethics, n. d. Kemerling, 2002 Sinnott-Armstrong, 2006)Mill tried to respond to these charges by setting up a quality 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 good and confusing, and utilitarianism fosters an end justifies the means line of reasoning. provided utilitarianism does not accept the notion that some acts are arrogantly ethically wrong, so that potentially it can be warp into a system justifying 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, Adam Smith, and Ayn Rand. Critics charges that the ethical system of Epicurus leads to an austere hedonism. Adam Smiths invisible hand would cause the most productive state of an economy to be reached by allowing all of the people in the economic unit each to chase his own self-interest.Ayn Rand professed a view of demythologized self-interest, saying that altruism was irrational. (Hollinger, 2002, pp. 28-31 Normative Ethics, 2002 Sinnott-Armstrong, 2006) Deontological ethical scheme takes its name from the Greek determine deon, meaning that which is obligatory. It is ethical conjecture establish on a concept of debt instrument or obligation. Turning then to high-principled ethical systems, stem from Socrates, who felt himself job bound to accept the ruling of the judicature in Athens, which had ordered him put to death.From Socrates, one can move ahead to Immanuel Kant, whose philosophical system led to his system of the matt tyrannical Act so that you palm humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, al tracks as an end, and neer as a means only. To develop his Categorical Impe rative, Kant looked to the roots of ethical motive in humanitys rational capacity and meticulously true a system based on moral absolutes. He argued that these are downright 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 Thomas Hobbes. This theory asserts that moral acts are those act that all people would agree to if they were completely unbiased. (Normative Ethics. n. d. ) Finally, in that location are philosophers such as John Locke, also considered deontological, who presented the psyche that all men are endowed with certain inviolable rights. (Normative Ethics. n. d. ) Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) set forth what is globally accepted as the most advanced theory of deontological or duty-based ethics.Contrary to the consequentialism of Mill, Kants theory judges morality by examining the te mper of actions and the will of agents rather than the goals sought or the ends achieved. 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 direction 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 prostrate imperative for ethical judgments. He insisted that the imperative, or duty, had to be categorical, not unmingledly 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 principl e of ethics had to go far beyond such incidentals.Eventually, Kant create his categorical imperative, which he articulated in several different versions, including Always act in such a way that you can also will that the truism of your action should become a common law. and Act so that you treat humanity, both(prenominal) in your own person and in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means. The stolon version of the categorical imperative emphasizes an appraisal important to Kants thinking of the idea that any rule was valid only if it could be applied universally. The second recital 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. good rules based on duty have the great advantage that the ends can never justify the means. For example, suppose a swayer wished to revive the Roman practice of wo rldly concern crucifixion of criminals. Even if it was determined that the general populace was so caught up in a blood lust that the pleasure of the masses who would watch the agonies of the condemned far, far out-weighed the unworthy of the victim, the categorical imperative demands that individual human rights be acknowledged and held inviolable.No matter how ofttimes the public wants this spectacle, it must be brush off from our moral deliberations. (Hollinger, 2002, pp. 38-39 Kay, 1997) Putting Kants categorical imperative into practice, however, has presented a number of good problems. First, the categorical imperative gives only absolute results. Actions are good or bad. on that point is no room for gray areas. For example, imposition is always wrong &8212 even the civic lie or the lie told for impressive reasons. Second, duties often come into conflict, and the categorical imperative gives no means to resolve these conflicts.Utilitarianism permits a ready compariso n of all actions, and if a set of alternatives have the same expect utility, they are equally good. Conflicting duties, however, may require that I perform logically or physically incompatible actions, and my adversity 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 go bad 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 sensory faculty that there are categorical situations beyond which I will not go.