Deontology and consequentialism are dominant theories that are related to the contemporary normative ethics. Consequentialism is a theory in which all the actions that can be termed as right yield desired outcomes (Betzler 13). On the other hand, deontology, which is a theory that was developed by Kant, identifies rightness through the features of acts as opposed to the outcomes. For instance, in case consequentialism needs to sacrifice an innocent person for the greater benefit, deontology can end up forbidding this move on the basis that it violates the rights of innocent persons, or rather lead to the violation of various moral constraints. This paper is going to focus on contrasting the ideals of Deontology with that of Consequentialism
Arguably, deontology weighs the rightfulness and the wrongfulness of an act on the basis of whether such an act is capable of or is not able to meet the intrinsic requirement in itself (Duignan 9). Nonetheless, the deontologists have a view that, some actions will never be considered to be right, regardless of their associated consequences. Instead, they believe that such actions may be considered to be wrong, and this is due to the intrinsic quality that is in the action itself (Duignan 11). On the other hand, consequentialism affirms that, the rightfulness or rather the wrongfulness of an act will rely on the foreseeable consequences that are related to the acts, systems, or patterns that are reasonable. Nevertheless, in consequentialism, an act is considered as right if its effects are positive. If the effects of such an act are negative, that is, harmful effects, then such an act will be termed as wrong (Brooks 17).
According to consequentialism, an individual's action is correct in proportion as long as it is capable of promoting happiness. A person's action is considered to be wrong if it tends to yield the reverse of happiness (Brooks 24). When comparing consequentialism to deontology, the latter claims that consequences do not matter. An action can either be moral or immoral. In this case, it is, therefore, evident that the consequentialism concentrates more on the results than anything else. Deontology, on the other hand, tends to ignore the outcomes, or do not insist on the results (Kelly, Gerard, & H 13). The comparison between deontology and consequentialism provides that; consequentialism focuses on the future for the consequences, effect or results, while deontology majorly concentrates on the past, for the rules and also for precedents (Kelly, Gerard, & H 16).
The other difference that exists between deontology and consequentialism is the fact that consequentialism focuses on the end results (Kelly, Gerard, & H 17). This difference is closely related to virtue ethics that pay more attention to the character of the actor, instead of the actual action or rather the end results (Kelly, Gerard, & H 19). In contrast to this, deontology concentrates more on the action itself, regardless of the results. The other difference between deontology and consequentialism is that in deontology, the morality that is attributable to a certain action is linked with duty; as well as the adherence to specified rules. Consequentialism on the other hand claims that the morality that can be linked to a given action is attributable to specified results of that action (Betzler 31).
For instance, when it comes to the act of stealing by a thief; a deontologist will end up criticizing a thief basing on the fact that the thief has broken that moral imperative. The breaking of the moral imperative is what commands the thief to engage in stealing. A consequentialist on the other hand, will base his critic on the basis that the thief's action of taking another person's property by the use of force; may have caused some harm (Kelly, Gerard, & H 23).
In comparison, deontology is distinct from consequentialism, since deontology focuses on obligations or rather duties that are capable of motivating decisions or actions, as opposed to consequences of actions. The ethics related to deontology assumes the position that, the righteousness portrayed by an individual will depend on respect for duty. Apart from that, the rights as well as fairness that are reflected by those duties are also evident (Betzler 31). In this regard, it can, therefore, be stated that deontology tends to be appealing, since it persists on the role of some ethical notions which are obvious as principles and duty. In deontology, some of the actions are expected to be done or avoided according to the principle. The expectation is that a person must fulfill his moral duty, regardless of the outcome (Kelly, Gerard, & H 33).
The other comparison between deontology and consequentialism is that the consequentialism seems to be posteriori since it operates from the bottom to the top. Deontology tends to be priori since it operates from the top to the bottom (Kelly, Gerard, & H 33). In this case, deontology is deductive, since once there is a principle or rule at an individual's disposal. Such concepts can be applicable in a direct manner with the aim of getting answers on whether any intended actions is either right or wrong(Kelly, Gerard, & H 39).Apart from that, deontology is absolute when compared to consequentialism. Deontology tends to be absolute over consequentialism because; deontology believes that the rules can apply more widely. It also believes that the rules can be implemented in a more strict manner as opposed to consequentialism, since consequentialism has some exceptions (Kelly, Gerard, & H 42).
The other way in which consequentialism and deontology differ from each other is on the manner in which they assess actions. In the application of the consequential model, assessment of actions is done in terms of the value derived by such acts. The targeted typical criterion in this case is that of value maximization (Brooks 19). The value can be in terms of a single metric with the inclusion of pleasure, or can be in pluralistic term, with the inclusion of many values that are different. By contrast, the deontological theories first of all aim at specifying the normative principles that are related to permissibility or impermissibility. These theories never consider the achieving value, or rather bringing in some given states of affairs, as part of their major concerns (Brooks 22).
However, consequentialism has received several criticisms as opposed to deontology. For instance, consequentialism has never been linked with motivations and intentions. In this regard, an action that is carried out by an individual with good intentions will be considered to be morally wrong. The act will be considered to be morally wrong if its results turn out to be sour (Brooks 17). Conversely, any action done with sinister intentions is deemed to be morally right, in case they yield positive results (Brooks 23). The other criticism that is attributable to consequentialism is that; the approach tends to be useful only when judging actions after their occurrence. The results of consequentialism are usually in the form of judgments that focuses on what an individual could have done.
Works Cited
Betzler, Monika. Kant's Ethics of Virtue. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Internet resource.
Brooks, Thom. Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012 Internet resources.
Duignan, Brian. Thinkers and Theories in Ethics. New York: Britannica Educational Pub In association with Rosen Education Services, 2011. Print.
Kelly, David F, Gerard Magill, and H. Have. Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2013. Print.
