Ethical Theories Of Utilitarianism And Deontology

Improved Essays
Although torturing the gentleman instantly comes across as the most ethical option, both the moral theories of Utilitarianism and Deontology assist in compacting our thoughts into seeing if this thought is truly the most ethical option.
Utilitarianism centers its ideal on if a person’s actions help the broadest amount of people. What we do to get to the biggest sum of the least amount of bad results is the goal, it does not matter how it happens, as long as it does. The theory does not take into consideration the individuals feelings, only the results of the whole. A good example of this theory is when I was assigned to choose if I would kill one healthy man to save the lives of 5 injured people in the hospital or not. At the end of the assignment,
…show more content…
First, who all is involved? That would be the whole town, including the bomber and citizens. Now, who would be affected if the bombs went off? The whole town would be affected in some way. Does it matter how we protect the lives of the maximum, even if it hurt a minimum? Absolutely not. Finally, what could be done to protect the citizens, could torturing the man lead to their protection even if it is illegal? Yes, torturing the man seems to be completely ethical under the terms of Utilitarianism. This theory specifies what we should do based off of a case to case basis, sometimes it would benefit to torture a person, and sometimes not. Deontology is the complete opposite of Utilitarianism, it focuses one rules that do not change no matter the …show more content…
There is not a way that one is right and one is wrong. These theories are just different ways of looking at good or bad and right or wrong. What we need to do is look at this debacle through the lens of both things. Think about what is the right thing to do, also the consequences. Such as you can’t agree to always follow the code of conduct down to a tea. You must look at what the consequence of that is. For example, a nurse’s code of conduct says that they have to follow the law. For a nurse in Nazi Germany, the law said that they had to do some pretty horrible things to patients. Clearly, that would be unethical. Think about the consequences of following that rule would be. After thinking about the bombers and polices situation through the looking glass of both theories, I have concluded that I would be most ethical to torture the man. The law says it is illegal to do so, but the people will be saved, and if the man really does not want to be tortured then he would simply give up the information that he is keeping from the

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    While normally we would look at lying to a friend as morally wrong, if we are lying to protect their feelings and the overall net result is positive, then Act Utilitarianism supports lying. Lastly, Act Utilitarianism support moral flexibility. While many ethical theories have hard rules about never acting in certain ways, Act Utilitarian find that it is immoral to be bound by a rule if the net result of breaking that rule is for the positive benefit. The example Shafer-Landau gives is the Donner Party, where cannibalism enabled the survival of people who would have…

    • 825 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He takes out all prior feelings and emotions in order to not corrupt the integrity of morality. He tries so hard to stay away from a perverse selfish desire that he makes it logically possible to posit a moral maxim while also committing an act of diabolical evil. He is not interested in content instead, he gives rules of procedure, He believes that you make you “you”. The possibility to construct a universal maxim is to justify the actions of an individual. His guidelines to morality allow for a paradoxical course where a seemingly immoral act such as a suicide bomber can completely coincide with ethical principles within the guidelines he has set.…

    • 1002 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I’ve personally heard people say that they do something because someone else told them to do it or because they feel pity for a person or several people in a situation. I think that this goes against Kant’s ethics. From what I understand Kant believes that you should not have to feel that way about a situation to want to do something morally right, you should just do it because you know it is the right thing to do. Another aspect of Kant’s ethics that I really agreed with and found enlightening is the Kantian view on punishment. I think that criminals have to be rehabilitated and that the safety of the public should be the main purpose of arresting people and locking them up, which I think it is.…

    • 830 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Doctrine of Double Effect is a moral principle that gives us the ability to show the difference between the harmful effects of an action that is intended and the harmful effects of an action that is foreseen but unintended. The Doctrine of Double Effect says that it is sometimes permissible, when the end we are trying to achieve is good, to bring about as a foreseen consequence of an action what would be impermissible to bring about if it were directly intended. This means that it is morally wrong to go around intentionally killing people. Actions that we take with the intention of harming someone is wrong but at times, in certain circumstances, we can sometimes take actions that the end effect results in killing someone. For this to be considered morally acceptable it must agree with two things; first the end we trying to achieve must be good and second the harmful effect is foreseen but not intended.…

    • 1473 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    I agree with Nathanson statement that if we were to take a criminal’s life we are conveying him of being worthless and having no human value. I do not think we should have the option of doing that to anyone. Even though we may hate or have so much anger towards the criminal, we still should not take his life. Also Nathanson says we should respect human dignity and well-being, so we can punish people for the crimes they committed but we should not deprive them of everything which the death penalty does (Nathanson, p. 544). I also think we should abolish the death penalty because killing a human for what they did wrong such as murder, will not solve the problem or give the victim permanent relief, it will only be temporary and we are just as wrong as them when they committed the crime.…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes elaborates by explaining that “he which declares he thinks it reason to deceive those that help him can in reason expect no other means of safety than what can be had from his own single power” (Hobbes, 90). In other words, two individuals would understand that this is in the best interest for the both of them in the long run, since breaking the social contract would make themselves vulnerable to thievery and murder, there is more incentive to abide by the social contract you form, since the benefit of safety and the ability to flourish far outweigh the consequences. Bonds formed by…

    • 2148 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    This connects to Glaucon’s challenge because he says that it is better to always be just instead of unjust. If someone was following utilitarianism then there are actions they can commit that are ethical but would be unjust in Glaucon’s eyes. For example, looking at the protester example, Mill believes that killing one protester would be the best option because it has a good consequence. However, according to Glaucon, that person would be committing an unjust action because in the eyes of society murdering an innocent person is a bad action. This would be a criticism of Mill’s argument because it creates a complex for someone trying to follow utilitarianism as well as being a just human being.…

    • 1291 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Based on the provided information, the Kantian would offer his help and provide shelter without hesitation because it is the morally good thing to do. However, when the group of men comes looking for the refuge, he would expose the man based on the Kantian belief that lying is never justifiable under any circumstance. The best decision, according to Kant, is to tell the truth and have faith that it will always yield morally positive…

    • 1517 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This statement enclosed the justification and the base of the ethical egoism theory, therefore the pursuit of the well- being is the main purpose. Ethical egoism is a controversial moral theory, because it says that we should embrace the self- interest idea. That is whatever we do we should do in the pursuit of our own interest it does not matter if in the process of doing it we harm others. If we fail to do as the…

    • 761 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    2, pg608). This means that if all moral views have the same potential to be true or ‘right’ then we must give equal weight to views that we do not agree with as being ‘right’, it means we cannot criticise rapists or assaulters because their behaviour is based on their moral ideas and they must be holding those beliefs sincerely and believe them to be true. Therefore, meaning that meta ethical subjectivists believe that moral judgements are just the vocalisation of taste, however the taste for ‘wrong’ things such as wanton cruelty is not considered worse than a taste for kindness (Reason and Responsibility, Feinberg and Shafer-Landau, 2015, part 4, chpt. 2,…

    • 922 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays