Deontology and Utilitarian Scenario - Essay Example

Utilitarianism, which is a teleological framework, on the other hand, decides on whether some thing is right or wrong by looking at the consequences or ‘teleos’ of the relevant action or non action. I.e. the action itself is not value neutral and the intrinsic nature of the action is not very relevant. It is what is achieved by that action that is determinant in ascertaining whether something is right or wrong. As such the same action can be right in one instance and wrong in the other instance, depending on the circumstances and consequences.

This is directly at odds with deontological frameworks which provide that a given action will be universally right or wrong irrespective of the surrounding circumstances. The foregoing also highlights why deontology is considered to be a specimen of absolutism while utilitarianism exemplifies relativism. Utilitarianism, like the philosophies put forward by John Stuart Mills, look at whether something is right or wrong by looking at the consequences of that action in that it looks to see whether the action produces the greatest aggregate happiness amongst the relevant people.

Application of deontological principles to the ethical problem at hand In applying deontological principles, mainly in the form of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy on ‘categorical imperatives’, I can ascertain what I should or should not do when I’m standing on the bridge with the mad fat ethical philosopher. The only thing I must put my mind to is whether I should push the villain and kill him or not. The surrounding circumstances are irrelevant. It is only the intrinsic value of the action of pushing him and killing him that I must put my mind to.

As such, at first glance it can be said that under Kant’s philosophy the ‘right’ thing to do would be not to kill the villain. This general conclusion can be supported by applying some of Kant’s categorical imperatives. For example, applying the categorical imperative that is similar to the Golden Rule in the Bible and provides for the principle of universalizability, if I was the fat person on the bridge looking down at the tracks, I certainly would not have wanted to be thrown down on to the tracks for want of a heavy inanimate object.

If I would not want to be thrown down, then equally I should not throw the villain down. Furthermore, it is very clear that the villain is necessary only because there is a lack of any other heavy object. The fact that he is human is irrelevant. Only his mass and physical being is necessary. This goes directly against Kant’s categorical imperative that one must not use humans simply as a means to an end. The fact that I would be merely using the villain and disregarding his humanity if I did throw him down the tracks would go directly against this categorical imperative which emphasizes that respect for the person.

Note how in the above discussion the consequences of throwing down the villain were not discussed. This is because in relation to this specific action, it was irrelevant that by killing the villain the innocent people will be saved. However, ethical principles apply equally to action as well as non actions. It is one thing to think about throwing down the villain and killing him, but there is another thing to think about in the same circumstances. Presumably, I am the only one on the bridge and I have the power to save the five innocent