Euthanasia: Deontologists versus Consequentialists - Essay Example

Deontologists vs. Consequentialists If someone were to do his moral duty and perform an action consistent with ethical principles, then it would notmatter if it had negative consequences. Such is the view that deontologists hold -- decisions are made and actions done on the merit of the rightness or wrongness of an action and not on the rightness or wrongness of its outcomes. Simply put: certain actions or rules are regarded as appropriate, regardless of the consequence they have. Euthanasia, or mercy-killing, may be cited as an example of such principle put into action. Putting an end to one’s agony by cutting off a patient’s life support is a fundamental reasoning to such an action. Consequentialists, on the other hand, believe the ends always justify the means. Its assumption of morality is derived from what is good or desirable as an end to be achieved. Though it may seem rational to end another person’s misery who, at the moment, is not capable of doing anything about the situation, still the consequence of such action is unjustifiable. What if that person who is in agony or lies in a comatose state is still fighting for his life, though this is impossible to perceive because of his current state? What if the patient’s will is stronger than his fate? What if for a matter of day his life will be sustained had the respirator not been removed from him? To the consequentialists, these outcomes should be examined first to determine moral responsibility. As the previous example points out, both the deontologist’s and consequentialist’s points of view are based on ethical norms. The only difference is the issue on what norm is considered. While deontologists focus on the action, the consequentialists consider the effect of the action. But what makes an action or its consequence morally right? Is there an absolutist’ view of what is morally right? If there is why is there conflicting views on it? If not, how should the issue on morality be addressed? These questions are what we will try to answer using the arguments of advocates of these two views. Peter Singer’s “All Animals Are Equal” and Mark Vuletic’s “Deontological Objections To Consequentialism” will be explained in detail. Later in the analysis, I will propose a different view on the construct of morality and its implication on humans as well as animals. First, let us establish some fundamentals that may guide us in evaluating the ethics of a particular decision (in this case, determining whether an action or a consequence is morally right). Perhaps it is important to note the term used “right” may still be unclear. Consider the following questions. Is the acceptance of a specific thought purely based on the perception of its readers or receivers? Or is it based on a more logical, more concrete perception governed by specific laws adjudging such as “right”? Is it based on a general acceptance or on a universal? General may not mean universal in the sense that the former has a may still be perceived a bit exclusive that the latter. I believe it is a recognized fact that an individual has the right to self-govern in certain areas. Relative to this is that individuals are free to decide what, how, when and in what manner he should act. Having a free will does not mean an individual’s decision to act is not restricted whatsoever. If that would be the case, no society might have been formed. Hence, the decision to act is guided by perceived and accepted norms and rules, which are aimed at creating harmony within the person and the society. Needless to say for both to exist in a harmonious relationship, the decision to act should be directed at the promotion of the well being or the benefit of everybody. In effect no decision should be regarded as anything that will inflict other individual. This kind of reasoning puts every person on equal footing; no one is above them, of course the Law, which, as earlier pointed out becomes the universal basis for in considering what is right and what is wrong. Now that we have established the fact that human beings on ethical standards are considered equal simply because they are in the flesh, hence are all capable of experiencing pain and pleasure, we now move on to explore two different views that responds to situation where the question of inflicting pain and creating pleasure are relevant: consequentialist and deontologist. One of the advocates of the consequentialist’s point of view is Peter Singer (1989). In his article, “All Animals Are Equal,” he urges the readers to “extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species” (148).1 He points to the fact that even human beings who have the same basic needs, had expressed concerns over the unfair treatment that some of them receives from those who are perceived to be of higher race, ethnicity, gender, personality, capability or any other distinguishing characteristics that set them apart from the accepted group. Hence, the use of the term “discrimination” came to being. The basic principle of equality that he presents, however, argue on the “equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights” (149).2 According to Singer, the idea of giving equal consideration to both humans and non-humans are founded on the following arguments: 1) the fact that humans differ as individuals (physique, body color, language spoken, personal identification, not because of their races or sexes; and that 2) we can have no absolute guarantee that abilities and capacities have been distributed evenly, without regard to race or sex, among human beings. If the demand for equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings, then the demand for equality should be stopped. Instead it should be made clear that the claim to equality does not depend on the previously mentioned quantifiers such as intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact. Our concern for others then should not depend on what they are like, or what abilities they possess (151).3 Non-humans or animals are far different from humans; that is seems to be uncontestable. This is primarily because they do not have the faculty of thinking and language. What should then be the basis for granting them equal consideration as that of our fellow human beings? Singer, echoes the view presented by one of the Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham, asserting that the capacity to feel sufferings is a significant characteristic that gives animals the right to equal consideration. Singer labels the discrimination that is rendered to animals as speciesism. According to him there are three major forms of speciesism in the society, namely: 1) experimenting on animals, 2) eating their flesh, and 3) the speciesism in contemporary philosophy (153)4 or the failure of philosophy to challenge accepted beliefs, specifically extending philosophical theories to animals as well. In article by Mark Vuletic (1994) titled, “Deontological Objections To Consequentialism,” three questions, aimed at clarifying the issues pertinent to these moral perspectives, were addressed: (1) do consequentialist systems of ethics absolve their adherents of all personal responsibility? (2) Do consequentialists in fact select their system of ethics in order to absolve themselves of all personal responsibility? (3) Are deontological systems of ethics and their adherents innocent on both charges?5 He explained that if a person supports the consequentialist’ view of ethics it does not necessarily mean that the person is veering away from his personal responsibility to a moral calculation of the action’s utility. Vuletic regards arguing which view is better as useless asserting that no specific perspective may apply to a particular individual and to every situation at all time. Clarifications he provided for the aforementioned questions summed up in his statement stressing that, “the principle of utility maximization and the rules of deontological ethics can each be employed to absolve oneself of personal responsibility, but that people operating within both frameworks are likely to be trying their utmost to be decent, moral human beings.”6 Going back to our previous discussion on the consequentialist view as presesented by singer, one may comment that the specific problem that such view needs to address is: 1) how to measure pleasure and pain, and 2) how can they be recognized in those who cannot express their experiences. The deontological view may present problems in moral dilemmas as well since they provide no procedure to solve conflicts between duties. However, it becomes evident that deontological view gives more recognition of the importance of the individuals over the consequentialist’s since it does not consider the consequence which may be attributed to the previously identified quantifiers assigned to race, sex, capacity and abilities but rather considers its duties. Conflicts may arise, however, in cases when a person who holds a deontological view and has to weigh the importance of a number of responsibilities or duties before he acts on a particular situation/s. At this point let me offer an alternative to these perspectives. I believe that the Christian view on morality will give us a better understanding and acceptance of whatever differences both human and non-humans possess (whether genetically of environment-dependent attributes). All creation, including everything that has and will be studied, have come or been created by an Authority. This authority, considered by Christians as the Sovereign God, created a system of hierarchy in which God is above and rules over mankind, and man is above and rules over the animals and all other creations. Since God is the image of everything that is beautiful and good, He provided everything that each needs. He gave man authority to nurture and make use of all creations (note this is not limited to animals only) for whatever purpose the latter may serve (even fill his stomach). When man dies, which is likewise delegated for him by God after he has served his purpose on earth, other minute animals will benefit from his remains (thus completing the cycle). Any disturbance in the process may inherently create conflicts. Hence God provided man with wisdom to resolve each conflict. This knowledge does recognize the diversity of living creatures and have set the importance of every obligation or responsibility. This establishes the basis for judging which solution or action should merit approval. Once order is resolved, order is brought back. References: 1. Singer, Peter. All Animals Are Equal (online). In TOM REGAN & PETER SINGER (eds.), Animal Rights and Human Obligations, New Jersey, 1989, pp. 148-162 (World Wide Web) Accessed on 16 April 2008 from , p. 148. 2. Ibid, p 149. 3. Ibid, p 151. 4. Ibid, p. 153. 5. Vuletic, Mark I (2002). Deontological Objections to Consequentialism (1994). Infidels.Org. Accessed 17 April 2008 from 6. Ibid. Read More