You are on page 1of 6

utilitarianism vs deontological theories In utilitarianism, what makes an action right or wrong is outside the action; it is the consequences of the

action. By contrast, deontological theories put the emphasis on the internal character of the act itself. (1) What makes an action right or wrong for deontologists is the principle inherent in the action. If an action is done from a sense of duty, if the principle of the action can be universalized, then the action is right. For example, if I tell the truth, not just because it is convenient for me to do so but because I recognize that I must respect the other person, then I act from duty and my action is right. If I tell the truth because I fear getting caught or because I believe I will be rewarded for doing so, then my act is not morally worthy. Deontologists say that individuals are valuable in themselves, not because of their social value. Utilitarianism is criticized because it appears to tolerate sacrificing some people for the sake of others. With the emphasis on maximizing overall happiness, there are no absolute prohibitions on how we treat others. By contrast, deontological theories assert that there are some actions that are always wrong, no matter what the consequences. The best example of this is killing. Even though we can imagine situations in which intentionally killing one person may save the lives of many others, deontologists insist that intentional killing is always wrong. Killing is wrong (even in extreme situations) because it means using the person as a means and does not treat the human being as valuable in and of him. (Deontologists do often recognize self-defense and other special circumstances as excusing killing, but these are cases when the killing is not exactly intentional.) At the heart of deontological theory is an idea about what it means to be a person, and this is connected to the idea of moral agency. Charles Fried puts the point as follows: The substantive contents of the norms of right and wrong express the value of persons, of respect for personality. What we may not do to each other, the things which are wrong, are precisely those forms of personal interaction which deny to our victim the status of a freely choosing, rationally valuing, especially efficacious person, the special status of moral personality. (2)According to deontologists, the utilitarians go wrong when they fix on happiness as the highest good. Deontologists point out that this cannot be the highest good for

humans because if this was what we were meant to achieve, we would have been better designed without minds. That is, if our function as human beings was simply to be happy, blind instinct would have suited us better. The fact that we are rational beings, capable of reasoning about what we want to do and then deciding and acting, suggests that our function must be something other than mere happiness. Humans differ from all other beings in the world insofar as we have the capacity for rationality. The behavior of other things is determined simply by laws of nature. Plants turn toward the sun because of photosynthesis--they don't think and decide which way they will turn. Physical objects fall by the law of gravity. Water boils when it reaches a certain temperature. In contrast, human beings are not entirely determined by laws of nature: We have the capacity to legislate for ourselves; we decide how we will behave. So Kant identifies a fundamental feature of human beings-our capacity for rational decision making. Each of us has this capacity; each of us can make choices, choices about what we will do and what kind of persons we will become. This means that no one else can make these choices for us, and that each of us must recognize this capacity in the other. Notice that it makes good sense that our rationality is connected with morality, for we could not be moral beings at all unless we had this rational capacity. We do not think of plants or fish or dogs and cats as moral beings precisely because they do not have the capacity to reason about their actions. We are moral beings because we are rational beings, that is, because we have the capacity to give ourselves rules and follow them. We are capable of determining our own behavior, in a way that other beings are not. Where utilitarians note that all humans seek happiness, deontologists emphasize that humans are creatures with goals who engage in activities directed toward achieving these and they use their rationality to formulate their goals and figure out what kind of life to live. In a sense, deontologists pull back from fixing on any particular value as structuring morality and instead ground morality in the capacity of each individual to organize his or her own life, make choices, and engage in activities to realize his or her self-chosen life plans. What morality requires is that we respect all of these beings as valuable in themselves, and refrain from seeing them or valuing them only insofar as they fit into our own life plans. Although deontological theories can be formulated in a number of ways, one formulation is particularly important to mention. This is a rule Kant referred to as the categorical imperative. There are actually three versions of it, and the second version, as discussed earlier, goes as follows: Never treat another human being merely as a means but always as an end. This general rule is derived from the idea that

persons are moral beings because they are rational, efficacious beings. Because we each have the capacity to think and decide and act for ourselves, we should each be treated with respect, that is with recognition of this capacity. It is important to note the "merely" in the categorical imperative. Deontologists do not insist that we never use other persons, only that we never "merely" use them. For example, if I own a company and hire employees to work in my company, I might be thought of as using those employees as a means to my end (that is, the success of my business). This, however, is not wrong if the employees agree to work for me and if I pay them a fair wage. I thereby respect their ability to choose for themselves and I respect the value of their labor. What would be wrong would be to take them as slaves and make them work for me, or to pay them so little that they must borrow from me and must remain always in my debt. This would be exploitation. This would show disregard for the value of each person as a "freely choosing, rationally valuing, specially efficacious person."

Utilitarianism The first is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is classified as a consequentialist ethical theory. In other words, we judge the morality of an action in terms of the consequences or results of that action. Cheating, stealing, and murder are all wrong because they produce bad or harmful consequences. Charity and benevolence are good because they produce something beneficial. The morality of an action is determined by the consequences of that action. Actions which are moral produce good consequences. Actions which are immoral produce bad consequences. Actions have consequences for many different people. According to John Stuart Mill, the fundamental good that all humans seek is happiness. Mill's view is that all people desire happiness and everything else they desire is either a part of happiness or a means to happiness. Happiness is identified with pleasure according to Mill.

Consequentialism holds that the morality of an action is determined by the consequences produced by the action. Why do we think that murder, rape, cheating, and lying are immoral? Because those actions cause pain to the victims and families of the victims. Why do we think charity and benevolence are righteous actions? Because they produce pleasure or happiness. Since utilitarianism holds that we should produce happiness or pleasure, whose happiness or pleasure should be considered? The thief gets a certain amount of pleasure from a successful burglary. The utilitarian answer to this is that we should consider all parties influenced by the action, and calculate the pain and pleasure of everyone who is affected. If all the alternatives involve more pain than pleasure, the morally right action is the one which produces the least amount of pain. The greatest good for the greatest number creates the context for community. The proportionality of pain and pleasure must be judged in this context. When calculating the amount of pleasure and pain produced by any action, many factors are relevant. First of all, we must consider the intensity or strength of the pleasure or pain. We must consider the duration of the pleasure or pain. In addition, we must consider the long-term consequences of an action. Finally, we must consider the probability or likelihood that our actions will produce the outcomes or consequences we intend. To briefly summarize, the ethical theorist is interested in discovering the basic, fundamental principle of morality, a foundation upon which all moral judgments rest. The utilitarian claims to have found such a principle and identifies it as the greatest happiness principle. The entire criminal justice system can be justified on utilitarian grounds. A criminal justice system is instituted in order to lower the amount of crime, thereby lowering the amount of pain produced by crime. Deontological Ethics Some people say that a police officer has a duty to issue a ticket regardless of the consequences. This leads us to our new moral theory: deontological ethics. Deontology is the study of duty. Deontologists have argued that human beings sometimes have a duty to perform certain actions regardless of the consequences. Police officers have a duty to issue tickets even when it does not produce the greatest good for the greatest number. The most famous deontologist is Immanuel Kant. Kant believed that the consequentialist theory missed something crucial to ethics by neglecting the concept of duty and also a more basic morality, a good will or the intention to do what is right. In other words, the key to morality is human will or intention, not consequences. However, Kant draws a distinction between actions that are merely in accordance with

duty and actions which are done for the sake of duty. He holds that only actions that are done for the sake of duty have moral worth. Kant calls the fundamental principle of morality "the categorical imperative." It tells us what we ought to do or what we should do. The categorical imperative is unhypothetical, no "ifs" whatsoever. Just do it! You ought to behave morally, period. The categorical imperative commands absolutely and unconditionally. What is the categorical imperative? We will focus on two formulations. The first focuses on a basic concept of ethics called "universalizability." The basic idea of universalizability is that for my action to be morally justified, I must be able to see that anyone in relatively similar circumstances would act in the same way. Morality involves fairness or equality - a willingness to treat everyone the same way. Kant's idea is that you should do only what you are willing to permit anyone else to do. The next formulation focuses on the fact that human beings have intrinsic value (that is, value in and of themselves). Human beings should always be treated with reverence, and never treated as mere things. When we treat someone as a thing, object, or tool, it is the classic case of using someone as a means to our own end. Kant speaks of human beings as "something whose existence has in itself an absolute value." To summarize, let us contrast deontological ethics with utilitarianism ethics. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory. We must weigh the positive results of our actions against the negative results in deciding what to do. Deontology is the study of duty. The deontologist believes they key to morality is human will or intention, not consequences. This lesson attempts to explain how the two theories, and others mentioned in the text, approach and think about ethical issues in criminal justice. Justice and Duty Treating people as ends and producing the greatest amount of happiness both seem to be credible guides to the moral life. Nonetheless, both theories seem to have trouble with a certain range of cases. Utilitarianism seems to have difficulty with cases of injustice, and deontology seems to have no way to handle cases of conflicting duties. We need to explore the weaker points of both theories and propose an ethic to handle their deficits. According to utilitarianism, an action is moral when it produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. A problem arises when the greatest

happiness is achieved at the expense of a few. If we were to follow the utilitarian calculus, the suffering of a few, even intense suffering, would be outweighed by the pleasure of a large enough majority. Slavery and oppression are wrong regardless of the amount of pleasure experienced by the oppressing class. It is always wrong to treat someone as a mere means to one's own ends. It is simply unjust to mistreat anyone in order to benefit oneself or others. Deontology also has problems. Kant speaks extensively of duty. However, he seems to have no way to deal with cases of conflicting duties. Therefore, it appears that Kant's theory is weak where Mills is strong and vice versa. The utilitarian calculus gives us a method of determining what to do in cases of conflicting duties. An action ought to be done in a situation if, and only if: (1) doing the action (a) treats as mere means as few people as possible in the situation, and (b) treats as ends as many people as is consistent with (a), and (2) doing the action in the situation brings about as much overall happiness as is consistent with (1). This integrated approach avoids the problem of enslaving a few because such an act would violate point (1). It also avoids the problem of conflicting duties because point (2) provides a way of deciding what to do when we are faced with a conflict of duties.

You might also like