Deontology: Ethics and Universally Accepted Codes
In Defense of Deontology (Non-Consequentialism)
Consequentialism and deontology are two different theories concerning with morality. Consequentialism believes in the concept of the ends justifies the means. On the other hand, deontology does not believe in this concept. It believes that right actions are defined by duty. Deontology is the opposite of consequentialism when it comes to moral ethics, making it the better approach.
Deontology is a non-consequentialist theory. Deontologists claim that the rightness of an action should not be solely dependent on maximizing the good, even if that action goes against what is ethically right. For example, there are four critical conditioned patients in a hospital who each need a different organ to survive. A healthy man comes into the hospital for a regular check-up. Would you kill the healthy man to save the four? According to consequentialism, the doctor should take the healthy man’s organs to save the others, thus maximizing the good. Deontology objects to this way of thinking by arguing that it is immoral to kill an innocent regardless of the fact that it maximizes the good. Consequentialism does not respect rights and is too broad.
Deontology judges morality by examining the nature of actions and the will of people, rather than the goals achieved. We cannot predict the future and that is the reason why we must shift away from consequences to duties. Deontologists do care for the outcomes of our actions, but as far as moral evaluation, our actions are concerned not our consequences. We must be able to do what we would allow or want others to do. If the rule governing our action is not capable of being universalized, then it is not acceptable. Many would call this the “golden rule.” However, they are wrong because the golden rule claims to do to others what you would like them to do to you, which involves self- interest. The deontology rule actually claims that if you cannot incline everyone to follow the same rule
Consequentialism and deontology are two different theories concerning with morality. Consequentialism believes in the concept of the ends justifies the means. On the other hand, deontology does not believe in this concept. It believes that right actions are defined by duty. Deontology is the opposite of consequentialism when it comes to moral ethics, making it the better approach.
Deontology is a non-consequentialist theory. Deontologists claim that the rightness of an action should not be solely dependent on maximizing the good, even if that action goes against what is ethically right. For example, there are four critical conditioned patients in a hospital who each need a different organ to survive. A healthy man comes into the hospital for a regular check-up. Would you kill the healthy man to save the four? According to consequentialism, the doctor should take the healthy man’s organs to save the others, thus maximizing the good. Deontology objects to this way of thinking by arguing that it is immoral to kill an innocent regardless of the fact that it maximizes the good. Consequentialism does not respect rights and is too broad.
Deontology judges morality by examining the nature of actions and the will of people, rather than the goals achieved. We cannot predict the future and that is the reason why we must shift away from consequences to duties. Deontologists do care for the outcomes of our actions, but as far as moral evaluation, our actions are concerned not our consequences. We must be able to do what we would allow or want others to do. If the rule governing our action is not capable of being universalized, then it is not acceptable. Many would call this the “golden rule.” However, they are wrong because the golden rule claims to do to others what you would like them to do to you, which involves self- interest. The deontology rule actually claims that if you cannot incline everyone to follow the same rule