Deontology Vs Utilitarianism
There are many answers from many different sources for what “the good” actually is. I will be discussing a few theories that I feel have some key concepts which point to what the good ultimately is: egoism, utilitarianism, and deontology. Egoism values the desires of the individual the most, and this is most important to the individual. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, needs to be impartial in order to value each individual’s happiness equally. Deontology also conflicts with both of these other theories because it is not consequentialist like utilitarianism, and does not always benefit the individual or anyone else involved. The best solution for the conflicts between these three theories is to break them down and build a theory that can
…show more content…
As is supported by a passage from an article by Ali Shakil called “Kantian Duty Based (Deontological) Ethics”: “Deontological theories hold that some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to an admirable outcome. Actions in deontology are always judged independently of their outcome. An act can be morally bad but may unintentionally lead to a favorable outcome.” The ultimate good, viewed by deontology, is following certain actions that are deemed to be correct, no matter the circumstances and with no real value on the consequences. But, utilitarianism does not follow any set guidelines. A solution to this problem would be Rule …show more content…
J.J Smart was one of the main supporters of this theory stating “Rule-utilitarianism is the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action is to be judged by the goodness and badness of the consequences of a rule that everyone should perform the action in like circumstances” (Smart 9). Simply put, this theory would solve the issue that utilitarianism does not follow a set of rules, and still maintains its consequentialist view. But, Rule-utilitarianism is still impartial, which would place it in conflict with egoism. So, the way Rule-utilitarianism would respond to the situation of legalizing marijuana would depend upon the deontological view of what is right and wrong, which could go either way with marijuana, and the consequences of legalizing or banning the consumption of
As is supported by a passage from an article by Ali Shakil called “Kantian Duty Based (Deontological) Ethics”: “Deontological theories hold that some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to an admirable outcome. Actions in deontology are always judged independently of their outcome. An act can be morally bad but may unintentionally lead to a favorable outcome.” The ultimate good, viewed by deontology, is following certain actions that are deemed to be correct, no matter the circumstances and with no real value on the consequences. But, utilitarianism does not follow any set guidelines. A solution to this problem would be Rule …show more content…
J.J Smart was one of the main supporters of this theory stating “Rule-utilitarianism is the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action is to be judged by the goodness and badness of the consequences of a rule that everyone should perform the action in like circumstances” (Smart 9). Simply put, this theory would solve the issue that utilitarianism does not follow a set of rules, and still maintains its consequentialist view. But, Rule-utilitarianism is still impartial, which would place it in conflict with egoism. So, the way Rule-utilitarianism would respond to the situation of legalizing marijuana would depend upon the deontological view of what is right and wrong, which could go either way with marijuana, and the consequences of legalizing or banning the consumption of