Ethical Issues: The Utilitarian and Deontological Theories of Ethics - Term Paper Example

? Henry Nabea # Philosophy # 3 May, Ethical Issues In Ethics, there are a number of ethical theories that forms the basis of making ethical decisions. The theory of ethics that one subscribes to determines the kind of ethical decisions they will make in a given ethical dilemma. The two main theories of Ethics that have traditionally had a lot of influence in the world o Ethics are, the utilitarian theory of Ethics, and the Deontological theory of Ethics. The application of these two different theories of Ethics to particular and concrete ethical dilemmas yields different results and this leads to controversies among the proponents of different theories of Ethics. This paper applies these two theories of ethics on particular concrete cases. The cases are, keeping/breaking a promise, abortion, and Euthanasia. As sources of information, two books are used: Practical Ethics, by Peter Singer, and Ground Work of the Metaphysics of Morals, by Emmanuel Kant. Before applying the two ethical theories to the above cases, it is important to first give an overview of each of the theories. To begin with, the utilitarian theory of ethics is an end based theory. In other words, in determining the morality of an action, the proponents of utilitarian theory will focus on the end result of the action, and if the end product of the action will result in greater good to the majority of people, i.e. if the action will maximize happiness for the majority, then the action is a morally right action (Singer, 3). On the contrary, if the action diminishes happiness, or makes the majority of people to suffer, then the action is morally wrong. Deontological theory of Ethics on the other hand is based on the law or the duty ( Kant, 13-15). This means that an action is regarded as being morally right if it is done in accordance with the requirements of the law, or in fulfilment of one’s obligation. Conversely, an action is regarded as being morally wrong if it is in contradiction with the established law, or ones’ obligations in life. Application of Utilitarian and Deontological theories of Ethics to particular ethical issues Keeping/Breaking a promise In determining the morality of the action of either keeping or breaking a promise on the basis of deontological theory of Ethics, the main question that we should ask ourselves is whether or not the act of breaking or keeping the promise is in line with our obligations or the law. Emmanuel Kant, one of the main proponents of deontological theory of Ethics argues, in his famous categorical imperative, that before taking an action, we should ask ourselves whether we would wish our manner of acting to be made into a universal law applicable to all similar cases (Kant, 18). Kant, therefore, is of the view that we have the obligation to treat others as we would like to be treated. In this sense, breaking a promise that we have made is morally wrong because we would also not like somebody who has promised us something to fail to keep their promise. We should always keep our promises since we have an obligation to fulfil what we have promised to do. A utilitarian on the other hand would base their judgement on the consequence or the end result of either breaking or keeping ones promise. If the action will maximize the interests of the majority, then the action is morally right, and on the contrary, if the action will result in diminishing happiness to the majority of people, then the act is morally wrong. On this basis, a utilitarian wouldn’t give a definitive answer on whether the act of keeping or breaking a promise is intrinsically wrong or right. A utilitarian will conclude that the morality of the action of either keeping or breaking a promise will greatly depend on the particular circumstance at hand. If the circumstance is such that keeping or breaking a promise will lead to greater happiness for the majority, then the action is morally right and if the action will lead to suffering of the majority of people, then the action is morally wrong. Abortion The main controversy in the issue of abortion lies in the question of whether or not a foetus is a human being. The position that one will adopt on this issues will determine the moral judgement that they will make concerning the whole issue of abortion. There are scholars who contend that foetus cannot be regarded as human being, or a human person, simply because they are not self conscious and therefore, they are just like other non-human animals. Peter Singer subscribes to this view (Singer, 150). For such scholars, we should regard abortion not as the killing of a human being, but as killing any other non-human animals. Other ethicists are of the contrary view that foetuses, though still in the process of development, are indeed human beings (Singer, 149). From a deontological point of view, we have a moral obligation to adhere to the established laws and norms guiding our behaviour. So, as long as long as the law prescribes against abortion, then from the deontological point of view we should never abort because we have the moral obligation to obey our laws. Secondly, as Immanuel Kant put it in his theory of Ethics, we should always treat human beings as ends in themselves, but never as means to an end (Kant, 51). So, from this basis, as long as you conceive foetus as a human being, then it is unethical to abort the foetus for any other reason because by so doing, you will be treating the foetus (human being), as a mean to an end but not as an end in itself. But if you hold the contrary view that foetuses are not human beings, you may abort for any other reason because you wouldn’t be dealing with human beings, but non-human beings. From the utilitarian perspective, there are two determinants on the morality of abortion. First is the conception that one has on whether or not foetuses can be termed as human beings. The second determinant is the impact of the end result of abortion; will abortion lead to the maximization of happiness to the greatest number of people? Some utilitarians, like Peter Singer, are of the view that it is morally wrong to kill an autonomous, self conscious being (human being) with hopes and aspiration for the future (Singer, 131-132). And on this ground, if one holds the view that foetuses are human beings, then it is morally wrong to kill such foetuses. But if one is of the contrary view, like Peter Singer, that foetuses aren’t human beings, then it is morally justifiable to abort. And, if the act of abortion will lead to the happiness of the majority of people, then it is morally right and it should be procured, but if the act of abortion will lead to contrary results, then it is morally wrong to abort. Euthanasia There are three types of Euthanasia, voluntary Euthanasia, involuntary Euthanasia, and non-voluntary Euthanasia (Singer, 176-180). Voluntary Euthanasia refers to the Euthanasia whereby one has consented, or even requested for Euthanasia to end their lives. Involuntary Euthanasia refers to the Euthanasia in which one hasn’t consented to the Euthanasia, either because they have not been asked, or they have been asked and chooses to live (Singer, 179). Non-voluntary Euthanasia, on the other hand, refers to Euthanasia in which one is not capable of consenting, either because they are in comma or any other health problem. From the deontological perspective, we have the moral obligation to act in accordance with the laws and regulations guiding our behaviour. This means that in the case of Euthanasia, we should act in accordance with the laws and regulations on Euthanasia. In this sense, practising Euthanasia in a country where it is legally accepted would be morally right, and practising it where it is not legally accepted would be morally wrong. From the utilitarian perspective, the end result of Euthanasia should determine whether the act is morally right or wrong. If Euthanasia will result in greater happiness to the majority of people, then it is morally right to do it and vice versa. Peter Singer argues that as long as there is no hope of recovery for a sick person, and the person is in excruciating pain, it is morally right for such a person to be assisted to die if they request to be assisted (Singer, 193). And if they are incapable of consenting to Euthanasia, we should go ahead and assist them to die, but if the person wishes to continue living in pain, rather than dying, we should respect their autonomy and allow them to continue living. A critical look at the moral judgements reached by applying deontological theory of Ethics and Utilitarian theory of Ethics on these three controversial Ethical issues shows that the judgements reached by applying utilitarian theory of Ethics is by far, the more practical and rational decisions. The main weakness in deontological theory of Ethics is that it relies so much on the established laws and regulations guiding our behaviour and this leaves little room, if any, for critical evaluation of the particular case at hand before we make moral judgements. But utilitarian theory of Ethics gives us the opportunity to evaluate the consequences of our actions, and to make moral judgements based on the consequences or the results of our actions. Hence I prefer utilitarian theory of Ethics to deontological theory of Ethics. Works Cited Kant, I. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. (Wood, A. trans.).London: Yale University Press, 2002. Singer, P. Practical Ethics. 2nd edt. UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Read More