Deontology Analysis Stemming from the Greek root word “deontos” meaning obligation or duty, deontology is an ethical theory which is used to judge the morality of an action itself rather than the consequences of an action as in the theory of consequentialism. Those who favor deontology believe that consequentialism can be unrealistic, too demanding, and sometimes condone immoral acts to achieve an ethical end. Consequentialism imposes that we must act in accordance to the extent that brings about the most happiness or well-being for everyone. In contrast, “What seems most distinctive of deontology is the claim that we are sometimes required not to maximize the good” (McNaughton and Rawling 38). Being a rule-based theory, deontology encompasses
…show more content…
Perhaps a summarization of the overall reason to emigrate is to attempt to change one's quality of life. For the vast majority of immigrants they do not do so out of purely selfish intentions. Rather, they seek a better life for their family than the one afforded by their host nation. For some, this can be the difference between survival and defeat. As implied in the categorical imperative, we all have an obligation to the whole of humanity to live. For others, just by seeking out a better life and possibly achieving even a slightly higher position in the world they are also fulfilling a duty as they will be in a better position to help others in need. Therefore, these immigrants are participating in the betterment of …show more content…
However, if this impedes another's ability to better their life or even survive, by way of favoring one's entitlements or just deserts over another, it can be a negative rights violation of another. One may then say that this is unrealistic as we as humans tend to place greater emphasis on our own personal situation, freedoms, and rights over those whom we do not know. Arguably though, this does not provide adequate justification to impede the opportunities of betterment for others. The world's strife seems to grow more severe when everyone is only looking out for themselves. Thus the conflict of “let us in!”, “keep them out!” is obviously a far cry from a rational answer with unifying and progressive
Perhaps a summarization of the overall reason to emigrate is to attempt to change one's quality of life. For the vast majority of immigrants they do not do so out of purely selfish intentions. Rather, they seek a better life for their family than the one afforded by their host nation. For some, this can be the difference between survival and defeat. As implied in the categorical imperative, we all have an obligation to the whole of humanity to live. For others, just by seeking out a better life and possibly achieving even a slightly higher position in the world they are also fulfilling a duty as they will be in a better position to help others in need. Therefore, these immigrants are participating in the betterment of …show more content…
However, if this impedes another's ability to better their life or even survive, by way of favoring one's entitlements or just deserts over another, it can be a negative rights violation of another. One may then say that this is unrealistic as we as humans tend to place greater emphasis on our own personal situation, freedoms, and rights over those whom we do not know. Arguably though, this does not provide adequate justification to impede the opportunities of betterment for others. The world's strife seems to grow more severe when everyone is only looking out for themselves. Thus the conflict of “let us in!”, “keep them out!” is obviously a far cry from a rational answer with unifying and progressive