Ergo, actions are evaluated morally based upon their consequences, not the actual act itself. My opinion is that lying is acceptable when protects yourself or others from potential harm.
Kantian ethics do not allow for exceptions, which I see as a major issue. This makes it practical. If one were to follow the utilitarian approach to the light dilemma, then the universe would easily be saved.
Deontology sports a fair trial of right or wrong as it depends on a universally accepted morality approach. In some scenarios, people have the correct reasoning, and are able to act on that reasoning, but create distress instead.
Do not use this as your main reason why you like this theory - flipping a coin as Two Face in "The Dark Knight" is a simple ethical decision procedure, but that by itself does not make it a good theory].
If you like the idea of choosing your own moral projects, Utilitarianism is not for you. Reason is great, but I think we need more in order to motivate moral duties. Bentham would say that you should not tell the Japanese soldiers that Mr. Utilitarianism seems to put happiness into a business ledger.
As people have commented previously, the best solutions to issues and dilemmas can be found by combining the different theories. At what cost do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
The utilitarian approach can also be selfish in nature as it gears on judgments more ideal to the philosopher. Joseph Shapiro November 6, at 7: However, it is not because of their inherent consequence of upsetting people, but because you did so because you are very against smoking.
Your very close family friend and neighbor, Mr. This maximizes the greatest happiness and utility for all Americans, and thus this makes the act of stealing tolerable. That is because in "The Categorical Imperative," he places emphasis exclusively upon the will of actions, the Good Will, not the consequences of the actions.
Work Cited Kant, Immanuel. Not to act "as duty requires," but to act "because duty requires" Kant. Compare and contrast utilitarianism and deontology. Utilitarianism is the principle that the correct form of action be taken to benefit the greatest number of people. Deontology is defined as the area of ethics involving the responsibility, moral duty and commitment.
Kant's theories are argued from a deontological perspective, in that they are not situational. Kant believed that morality was ruled by laws and codes of actions. Aristotle argued that morality. Using the philosophical approaches of Kant's Deontology and Mill's Utilitarianism, I will present the ethical parameters of Dr.
Luthan's dilemmas and how these. Compare and contrast utilitarianism and deontology. Utilitarianism is the principle that the correct form of action be taken to benefit the greatest number of people.
Deontology is defined as the area of ethics involving the responsibility, moral duty and commitment. It is the brainchild of philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham.
It believes that outcomes as a result of an action have a greater value compared to the latter. "Difference Between Utilitarianism and Deontology." hazemagmaroc.com May 13, Also, utilitarianism is not a branch of ethics.
It branches off of consequentualism. In this paper, I will illustrate the arguments pertaining to John Stuart Mill's teleological utilitarianism and Immanuel Kant's deontological categorical imperative. In Utilitarianism, Mill generated an encompassing code of ethics by the same name (utilitarianism).Compare contrast mill s utilitarianism and kant s deontological ethics