Utilitarianism Vs Deontology

Deontology Deontology steps in where utilitarianism fails, utilitarianism fails in the idea that there are absolutely morally forbidden actions. But, in reality, even the worst actions are not always wrong, given extreme circumstances. Deontology is all about duty and moral laws. For instance, if a person does a good act, and it has a good outcome, from a utilitarianistic view, this person was right. However, in deontological view, this person is only right if the decision was made or action taken with good intent, in following his or her sense of duty and the moral laws. There is an obvious question that sticks out in this reasoning: what are the moral laws, and where do they come from. According to Immanuel Kant, the man who started
Though it has some good ideas and qualities that make it valid, and make it remain a topic of the current philosophical community, it does have some downfalls. The categorical imperative mentioned previously, can provide a good way to get perspective on ideas, it fosters a mindset of evaluating actions before taking them. However, not all scenarios are easily applied universally, life is not simple, most things are not cut and dry. Some situations have a lot of variables, which leads a person who wishes to use this imperative with few choices: either risk oversimplifying the factors, or use so many factors that the application is significantly farther from universal. Take the earlier example of an intruder trying to kill the home owner, if this example is changed to include a past history or relation between the two people, things get trickier. Another issue with deontology is that though the idea of ignoring outcomes can make it easier to take certain actions, no matter how pure the intent, there will still be consequences to follow. Not only does this leave a lot of room for someone to unintentionally find themselves in a stick situation, it also excludes the fact that humans are always thinking about and trying to control the future. It would be near, if not completely, impossible to find and person who never occasionally considers the future, it would almost be against our nature. How can we use a standard for ethical and moral justness, if in its most basic and rigid form, it goes against who we are as