Deontology and Utilitarianism - Essay Example

 Deontology and Utilitarianism Deontology and utilitarianism constitute the bedrock of medical ethics. The principles of deontology relate to the dignity and independence of the patient. On the other hand, the norms of utilitarianism address harmful or beneficial consequences (Kanniyakonil 59). The theory of utilitarianism claims that an act is justified if it maximises utility by striking a balance between the pleasure and pain ensuing from that act. An act, in accordance with this theory, is deemed to be morally vindicated, if the pleasure consequent to that act surpasses the pain generated (Purchase 309). As a result, public policy as well as individual actions should endeavour to achieve the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Thus, utilitarianism usually lays stress on cost effectiveness or cost benefit analyses. For instance, such analysis has been applied to the issue of whether animal experiments are to be permitted in the United Kingdom. The chief disadvantage associated with adopting such a narrow perspective that is solely focussed on the result, leads to the acceptance of actions that cannot be justified morally (Purchase 309). Thus morally unacceptable actions may result from the application of this theory. Utilitarianism tends to diminish the responsibility of the individual to some extent, and it is also perceived to be exacting. In accordance with this theory, an individual before acting or taking a decision will assess the overall benefit that will accrue to him, and whether the happiness of all the involved parties will undergo a net increase. In other words, utilitarianism exhorts the people to benefit those whose need is greater, by sacrificing what they possess. This is obviously inconsistent with the past and present social traditions (Lawson 3). The absence of a distinction between superfluous and mandatory actions serves to devalue the individuals who adhere to the tenets of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is of two types, first, act utilitarianism and second, rule utilitarianism. In both these categories, the rightness or otherwise of an act is determined on the basis of the results. Moreover, in rule utilitarianism, the correctness of the rule is judged by the results obtained from the rule (Loewy and Loewy 36). Similarly, in act utilitarianism, the rightness of the act is established by the outcome of the act. The deontological theory requires people to discharge their duties faithfully, whilst examining a moral quandary. Consequently, individuals are expected to adhere to their obligations to the other members of society, due to the belief that following one’s duty is enjoined by ethical correctness. Thus, a true follower of deontology will be law abiding and a firm upholder of promises (Rainbow). The decisions taken by such a person will be consistent to a very high degree, as they will be founded on that person’s established responsibilities. Deontology admits of two varieties, namely, act deontology and rule deontology. Whilst applying the act deontological theories to determine whether a case is morally correct, there should be an absence of ambiguity regarding the data of that case. Thereafter, appropriate action is to be adopted. This class of theories clearly and individually depicts the moral justification for each act. On the other hand, the rule deontological theories stress the presence of a norm that is independent of teleology, and which is comprised of rules that need not be in force (Kanniyakonil 60). Both these theories fail to provide an explicit definition of what constitutes good, and at most a general and hazy description is provided. The utilitarian deems good to be a balance of pleasure over pain. It was the firm belief of Kant, the founder of this school of thought that only the absolute good was the goodwill or the will to submit to independently derived moral law (Loewy and Loewy 36). Consequentialist theories suffer from the defect that they depend exclusively on the outcomes for judging an act and its agent. This is also true of utilitarianism, which is a consequentialist theory. This absolute reliance on consequences sets aside fallibility and the randomness of events in evaluating blame or praise. An action or rule that has a bad outcome, irrespective of the unpredictable cause, is bad. Thus, rule utilitarianism, which requires adherence to the rule that maximizes the good of the majority, constitutes a form of deontology, to the extent that it follows some established rule (Loewy and Loewy 37). As an ethical theory, the theory of utilitarianism possesses a number of advantages. One of these advantages is that utilitarianism adopts a scientific approach to ethical reasoning. Another benefit associated with utilitarianism is that it has significance in the case of act utilitarianism. Research scholars like Beauchamp and Childress have contended that the strength of utilitarianism can be seen as three elements, namely output power, practicality, and clarity. They further argue that utilitarianism is best suited to their principle of beneficence (Robertson, Morris, & Walter 404). It is seen to conform to the approaches associated with public policy. The concept of utilitarianism has its share of detractors and it has faced a number of challenges. The replaceability problem is one of such challenge. It is based upon the thought experiment, in which the killing of a healthy person for providing organs to six persons has been justified(Robertson, Morris, & Walter 404). It is possible to justify the killing of a person for the purpose of others, only in the utilitarian approach. In other models this is not possible, and such acts would be illegal. Harming someone for the benefit of the maximum is addressed in medical ethics, on the basis of the intentions of the moral agent. Another feature considered in this regard is that of the harm caused, with regard to utility, which has also been dubbed the double effect (Robertson, Morris, & Walter 404). Nevertheless, the utilitarian approach proves to be of extraordinary value, when applied to everyday situations, rather than the artificial and preposterous scenarios painted by the detractors of utilitarianism. Moreover, those who support the utilitarian theory are vociferous in their condemnation of the individuals who criticize utilitarianism (Robertson, Morris, & Walter 405). Thus on the whole, the deontological initiative to an incident concentrates on whether it is justified or not. Deontology constitutes an ethical philosophy that relies on rules and doctrines, in order to describe action. These rules are to be adhered to abidingly by every individual without exception. The ethical norms of beneficence, nonmaleficence, independence and justice are the mainstays of deontology. For instance, a nurse who adopts a deontological approach would view an incident and its consequences on a patient and related professionals, by evaluating the incident on the basis of these norms (Wood 7). Undoubtedly, there is much to be appreciated in deontology. Nevertheless, it is not free of fault, and one of its more familiar drawbacks is the absence of any rationale for determining what constitutes a person’s duties. A few of the other drawbacks are the fact that a person’s duties could be in conflict and that deontology ignores the welfare of others. Thus, a major lacuna in deontology comes to the foreground, namely that it is unrelated to the context of a situation (Rainbow). As a consequence of this disadvantage, deontology does not offer any solution for dealing with situations involving conflicting obligations. An obvious problem with such utilitarianism is that the rule or act is deemed to be correct, solely on the basis of the consequences that ensue. A consequence to be good should result in the greatest good for the greatest number. Another major disadvantage with utilitarianism is that the concept of good is equivocal (Loewy and Loewy 36). Neither deontological ethics nor utilitarian ethics is devoid of drawbacks. Some scholars had expressed concern regarding the latently harmful conclusions arrived at from calculations based on utilitarian theory. These individuals have recommended the adoption of deontic constraint, instead of entertaining the totally objective deliberations that are founded on utilitarian principles. The principle of utility should not be viewed purely on the basis of moral agents and ethics. What is required is that the benefits of this theory provides to others have also to be taken into consideration, while arriving at a conclusion regarding the usefulness of utilitarian principles (Robertson, Morris, & Walter 405). The deontological approach consists of the concept of law, obligation or duty as the determining factors of moral decision making. On the other hand the utilitarian theory determines the correctness or otherwise of an action, on the basis of the consequences that result from it. The utilitarian theory does not consider the fidelity or truthfulness of an action, and is only seized with the result that it produces. In addition, the utilitarian theories consider the outcome of each individual act, and do not take into account the outcome of a group of actions. This makes it difficult to formulate rules on the basis of a class of actions. Therefore, generalization is not possible in the utilitarian theories. The distinction between the deontological and utilitarian theories lies in the manner in which they respond to values. The utilitarian theories are seized with realising the good in each and every duty or obligation. However, the deontological theories do not subscribe to this view and exhibit a strong disinclination to classify duties and obligations on the basis of realising good. For instance, it could be difficult to decide what is good, on the basis of the utilitarian theories, in respect of genetically modified crops. The difficulty arises, when an attempt is made to determine whether such crops are to be produced, as they provide food for the hungry masses; or whether they should not be produced, as they damage the environment. Another instance is provided by the transplant of organs. In such transplants individuals are benefitted at the cost of organ donor’s welfare. Once again it is difficult to determine, what is good in this case. As such, both these theories are not flawless, when it comes to taking ethical decisions. Although the utilitarian theory seems to benefit some people, it nevertheless causes harm to others. There is no clear definition of the term good, in this theory. On the other hand in the deontological theory actions have to be performed on the basis of a person’s obligations and duties towards the rest of society. The consequences of such an approach are not taken into consideration. However, there is no logical basis for determining an individual’s obligations. This is a major drawback with deontology. Moreover, there is no remedy for conflicting obligations in this theory. The utilitarian theory is more compelling than the deontological theory, because it attempts to promote the good of the majority, while the latter ignores the welfare of others. Works Cited Kanniyakonil, Scaria . The fundamentals of bioethics: legal perspectives and ethical approaches. Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, India, Department of Publications of Paurastya Vidyapitham, 2007. Lawson, Andrew D. "What is medical ethics?" Current Anaesthesia & Critical Care Article in Press (2010): 1 – 4. Loewy , Erich H and Roberta Springer Loewy. Textbook of health care ethics, by Erich H. Loewy, Roberta Springer Loewy. Springer, 2004. Purchase, Iain F. "Ethical issues for bioscientists in the new millennium." Toxicology Letters 127.1–3 (2002): 307 – 313. Rainbow, Catherine. Descriptions of Ethical Theories and Principles (2002) 10 Nov 2010 Robertson, Michael, Kirsty Morris and Garry Walter. "Overview of psychiatric ethics V: utilitarianism and the ethics of duty." Australasian Psychiatry 15.5 (2007): 402 – 410. Wood, Jacqueline. "Ethical decision making ." Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing 16.1(2001): 6 – 10. Read More