Deontology vs. Consequentialism
Intro to Ethics Paper #2
Deontology vs. Consequentialism
Even though Deontology and Consequentialism can be extremely similar, both contain key factors that make each idea unique and very different. Sometimes, it may appear that both these theories simply arrive at the same conclusion by way of different paths. While this is sometimes true, it is important to understand how these theories differ. Each of these braches of Ethics deals with morals, actions, ethical decisions and judgments. Beyond the surface though, each of these Ethical ideas begin to differ greatly. Deontology is the theory and/or idea that judges the morality of an action based on the action’s adherence to the overall rules. Consequentialism is the theory and/or idea that the morality should be judged on the action’s overall outcome or consequences. Both theories judge morality. However, Deontology judges morality based on the actions themselves, while Consequentialism judges morality based on the end reaction. Out of these two ethical theories I believe Consequentialism to be least likely to be false.
As according to the Merriam-Webster, and Kantian ethics, Deontology is defined as the ethical idea of judging the morality of actions based on their adherence to the rules (Merriam-Webster 2013). In simpler terms, this means that actions are judged on whether or not society, or god, or any predetermined standard believes them to be okay. People must act from duty. For example, a Deontologist, or someone who practices Deontology, from the 1850s would judge slavery to be acceptable (Slavery in the United States 2013). However, a Deontologist today would not consider slavery to be acceptable, or in other words, would consider it morality forbidden. This change in judgment is due to the fact that slavery was considered to be widely acceptable in society in the 1850s but now it is considered widely unacceptable. Another principle of Deontology is that the humanity principle, which states that you
Deontology vs. Consequentialism
Even though Deontology and Consequentialism can be extremely similar, both contain key factors that make each idea unique and very different. Sometimes, it may appear that both these theories simply arrive at the same conclusion by way of different paths. While this is sometimes true, it is important to understand how these theories differ. Each of these braches of Ethics deals with morals, actions, ethical decisions and judgments. Beyond the surface though, each of these Ethical ideas begin to differ greatly. Deontology is the theory and/or idea that judges the morality of an action based on the action’s adherence to the overall rules. Consequentialism is the theory and/or idea that the morality should be judged on the action’s overall outcome or consequences. Both theories judge morality. However, Deontology judges morality based on the actions themselves, while Consequentialism judges morality based on the end reaction. Out of these two ethical theories I believe Consequentialism to be least likely to be false.
As according to the Merriam-Webster, and Kantian ethics, Deontology is defined as the ethical idea of judging the morality of actions based on their adherence to the rules (Merriam-Webster 2013). In simpler terms, this means that actions are judged on whether or not society, or god, or any predetermined standard believes them to be okay. People must act from duty. For example, a Deontologist, or someone who practices Deontology, from the 1850s would judge slavery to be acceptable (Slavery in the United States 2013). However, a Deontologist today would not consider slavery to be acceptable, or in other words, would consider it morality forbidden. This change in judgment is due to the fact that slavery was considered to be widely acceptable in society in the 1850s but now it is considered widely unacceptable. Another principle of Deontology is that the humanity principle, which states that you