Utilitarianism and Katian Theories - Essay Example

Utilitarianism and Katian Theories ‘Ethics’ refers to a of conduct. These are what guide actions in a particular situation. There exists wide variety of different ethical theories. However, this paper tackles utilitarianism and deontological theories. The two theories are based on distinctly different principles. Hence, it is in the interest of this paper to tackle the deontological ethical theories against the consequential ethical theories. Utilitarianism Theory Jeremy Bentham founded this and is based on the principle of the consequences of one’s action being for the good of a majority of people (Singer 3). This implies that before taking an action, an individual should first consider that the consequence(s) of the action would be the greatest good for a major population of the people. This stresses the fact that the overall sum of the utilities that are because of an action should be better than the overall sum of the utilities that result from an alternative action. This means that people should not decide on an action just because it will have good consequences for a majority. Instead, it should be a better alternative compared to other actions. Since this theory emphasizes a lot on consequences of an action as a guide to ethics, it is one of the consequential theories. Deontological-Kantian Ethical Theory The term ‘deontological’ originates from the word ‘Deon’, and is a Greek word that means ‘binding duty’. This essay tackles the Kantian theory as one of the deontological theories and its basis in the aspect of duty plays a majority role in judging whether an act is wrong or right. Immanuel Kant, who is a German philosopher, developed the Kantian theory. Unlike the utilitarianism theory, Kantian theory does not consider the good of the majority, but rather it considers that the duty is carried out should be (Singer 5). When an individual performs an act that is as per his or her duty, this is considered as an ethical practice. This, therefore, implies that according to this theory, the consequence does not matter, if the duty is carried out as stipulated. It is also worth noting that it also emphasizes on duty to laws that guide morals. For instance, if the law states ’stealing is prohibited’ then we have a duty of adhering to this law that is a guide to our morals. According to him, an individual could reason out and decide on what his or her obligations were as far as moral laws are concerned (Singer 6). Therefore, the person can think and come up with his or her judgment about his course of action. The utilitarianism theory is beneficial in the sense that it considers an action whose consequence will benefit many people (Singer 3). In addition to that, emotions are out of the question in this case since one does not consider hurting of feelings if most people realize the good consequences. However, utilitarianism raises more objections than its benefits. To begin with, this theory emphasizes on consequences that will occur. This means that it relies heavily on the future since results of an action follow or is after the action itself (Singer 4). The doer of the act does an action in the hope that the results will be good for a majority. The question that arises from this is that are we always sure of the future? What if the future does not unfold as anticipated and fails to result in the good of the majority? An example is a situation whereby an individual is killed so that his organs are donated to three different prominent people such as members of the cabinet. In this case, the recipients needed different organs like kidney, heart and bone marrow, and the donor happens to be compatible to all of the recipients. Unfortunately, all the recipients die during the organ transplant. In such a case, the act of killing one person for the good of three prominent people and the nation at large is in vain. In addition to that, the utilitarianism theory considers that the consequence is good for a majority (Singer 3). This means there should not be a bad consequence in existence that affects a majority of people. Practically in life, bad consequences are necessary because they lead to various inventions and innovations. For example, if terrorists decide to attack and kill majority of people in a particular place, although the consequence is not good; because of the death; the army of that state will ensure that they put in more advanced measures to avoid future attacks. In this case, although the consequence was not good, it led to much advancement technologically. Utilitarianism theory does not respect relationships and attachment among people Singer 6). There are people that we hold dear to, yet for the good of a majority, we are forced to take actions that do not consider their good when they happen to fall in the minority of the population. For instance, one is a supervisor in a train station and receives a warning about an automatic train that accidentally took on the wrong route and is carrying 200 passengers. On the same route in the opposite direction is the supervisor’s workmate with whom they are very close, and he is driving a one-carrier train after his delivery of goods. Unluckily, it is too late, and the trains are approaching each other. The supervisor should derail the one passenger train to avoid coalition between the two or derail the passenger train. According to utilitarianism, he should derail the one passenger train yet this means that his friend driving the one carrier train is likely to die or get injured in the process. Moreover, this theory may pose a challenge because individuals’ perceptions of ‘good’ vary a great deal (Singer 5). For example, if a philanthropic organization decides to assist refugees in a camp by giving them food. According to this organization, providing the refugees with food should result in good for them. However, the refugees may feel that had they been given their own pieces of land to settle in and own, they would find much pleasure, and it would be good. This is tricky since the ‘good’ consequence is not universal and obvious. There are principles that guide us in life and make us feel wholesome when we adhere to them. Each person has those principles that provide an outline of how he will act. The utilitarianism theory, however, may at times go against the individual’s principles (Singer 6). For example, an individual believes that he should not kill. Then a situation whereby a person’s relatives is held captive and the person is told to kill one of the relatives in custody so as to serve as a lesson to the rest who will be set free after witnessing the killing. Although only one relative will die, and the rest survives, it will be challenging for the person to go against his principles of not killing. Kantian ethics, on the other hand, has a lot of strengths and hence has an upper hand in an application to ethical situations. For instance, it emphasis on duty to morality helps to curb favoritism (Singer 7). In a situation whereby a person is a judge and his son is a thief, the judge will have to adhere to his duty and sentence the accused accordingly. Furthermore, this ethical theory is universal, unlike utilitarianism ethical theory (Singer 8). This is evidenced by the presence of universal laws such as the right to life. Therefore, this makes the Kantian ethical theory most applicable to individuals from various ethnicities globally. Apart from that, Kantian theory also promotes good will (Singer 6). This is so because it emphasizes on duty that is to moral laws. When an individual acts in such a way that the moral law is adhered to, the doer should not bear the blame for whatever happens since he or she acted as per the moral law. For example, when a student copies an exam and is discontinued from studying, the management of that learning institution should not be blamed for that action provided that their law states that a student who copies an exam should be discontinued from learning in that school. Kantian ethical theory is also reliable. This is because when people adhere to their duty and follow moral laws, there is an order that is realized in a place (Singer 11). For example, when the law states that when someone steals, he or she should be imprisoned for a certain duration, this will result in order within the country since people would not want to break the law and be imprisoned. Otherwise, if there is no duty to adhere to moral rules, there would be lawlessness with people doing anything that they want without minding whether it is against the moral laws. In addition, the Kantian theory is empathetic and humane. This is so because it presents room asking ones ’self whether they would want someone to do to them what they want to do to someone else (Singer, 13). If the answer is no, then the person should not do what he or she intended to do. This is quite empathetic and also contributes to harmonious co-existence. Acts that are bad can have consequences that are good for a majority of people. For example, if a community that is larger and stronger decides to attack a weaker neighboring community and steal from them, the majority who are the stronger the community will see the consequences of this act as good since they have become richer. However, such an act is against moral laws, and therefore the Kantian theory does not support such an action provided it is not a duty that adheres to morality. Although Kant’s theory is in many ways appealing, its main demerit is that at times adhering to the moral laws is not practical (Singer 15). For instance, when a serial killer asks for the whereabouts of someone’s relative, it is unreasonable for the person to say this without lying. This may raise eyebrows as to why we should apply Kantian theory if may happen. The answer, however, is that, when applied to everyone, then there would be no serial killer in the first place, so the individual will not have to lie about his or her relative’s whereabouts. Considering the various aspects of both theories, Kantian ethical theory poses as preferable to utilitarianism because it involves reasoning, respect to rules and laws and is universal. Work cited Singer, Peter. Ethics And Intuitions. The Journal of Ethics 9.3-4 (2005): 331-352. Web. Read More