The restriction of deontological duties to usings of anotherraises a sticky problem for those patient-centered deontologicaltheories that are based on the core right against using: how can theyaccount for the prima facie wrongs of killing, injuring, andso forth when done not to use others as means, but for some otherpurpose or for no purpose at all? The answer is that suchpatient-centered deontological constraints must be supplemented byconsequentialist-derived moral norms to give an adequate account ofmorality. Killing, injuring, and so forth will usually beunjustifiable on a consequentialist calculus, especially if everyone'sinterests are given equal regard. It is when killing and injuring areotherwise justifiable that the deontological constraint against usinghas its normative bite over and against what is already prohibited byconsequentialism. (This narrowness of patient-centered deontologymakes it counterintuitive to agent-centered deontologists, who regardprohibitions on killing of the innocent, etc., as paradigmaticallydeontological.)
The patient-centered version of deontology is aptly labeledlibertarian in that it is not plausible to conceive of not being aidedas being used by the one not aiding. Using is an action, not a failureto act. More generally, it is counterintuitive to many to think thatany of us have a right to be aided. For if there were astrong (that is, enforceable or coercible) duty to aid others, suchthat, for example, A had a duty to aid X, Y, andZ; and if A could more effectively aid X,Y, and Z by coercing B and C toaid them (as is their duty), then A would have aduty to “use” B and C in this way. Forthese reasons, any positive duties will not be rights-based ones onthe view here considered; they will be consequentially-justifiedduties that can be trumped by the right not to be coerced to performthem.
Somewhat orthogonal to the distinction between agent-centered versuspatient-centered deontological theories are contractualistdeontological theories. Morally wrong acts are, on such accounts,those acts that would be forbidden by principles that people in asuitably described social contract would accept (e.g., Rawls 1971;Gauthier 1986), or that would be forbidden only by principles thatsuch people could not “reasonably reject” (e.g., Scanlon2003).
If any philosopher is regarded as central to deontological moraltheories, it is surely Immanuel Kant. Indeed, each of the branches ofdeontological ethics—the agent-centered, the patient-centered,and the contractualist—can lay claim to being Kantian.
The problem of how to account for the significance of numbers withoutgiving up deontology and adopting consequentialism, and withoutresurrecting the paradox of deontology, is one that a number ofdeontologists are now working to solve (e.g., Kamm 1996; Scanlon 2003;Otsuka 2006, Hsieh et al. 2006). Until it is solved, it will remain ahuge thorn in the deontologist's side.
Having canvassed the two main types of deontological theories(together with a contractualist variation of each), it is time toassess deontological morality more generally. On the one hand,deontological morality, in contrast to consequentialism, leaves spacefor agents to give special concern to their families, friends, andprojects. At least that is so if the deontological morality containsno strong duty of general beneficence, or, if it does, it places a capon that duty's demands. Deontological morality, therefore, avoids theoverly demanding and alienating aspects of consequentialism andaccords more with conventional notions of our moral duties.
The agent-centered deontologist can cite Kant's locating the moralquality of acts in the principles or maxims on which the agent actsand not primarily in those acts' effects on others. For Kant, the onlything unqualifiedly good is a good will (Kant 1785). Thepatient-centered deontologist can, of course, cite Kant's injunctionagainst using others as mere means to one's end (Kant 1785). And thecontractualist can cite, as Kant's contractualist element, Kant'sinsistence that the maxims on which one acts be capable of beingwilled as a universal law—willed by all rational agents (Kant1785). (See generally the entry on .)
This solution to the paradox of deontology, may seem attractive, butit comes at a high cost. In Trolley, for example, where there isneither agency nor using in the relevant senses and thus no bar toswitching, one cannot claim that it is better to switch and save thefive. For if the deaths of the five cannot be summed, their deaths arenot worse than the death of the one worker on the siding. Althoughthere is no deontological bar to switching, neither is the saving of anet four lives a reason to switch. Worse yet, were the trolley headingfor the one worker rather than the five, there would be no reason notto switch the trolley, so a net loss of four lives is no reason not toswitch the trolley. If the numbers don't count, they seemingly don'tcount either way.
It advocated the principle and goal of "the greatest happiness of. "Utility" is defined in various ways, usually in terms of the. The notable thinkers. Apr 29, ib english extended essay criteria 2013 · A moral dilemma of a us involvement in nicaragua essays father with a sick child. Aug 16, 2012 · Consequentialism vs Utilitarianism Ethics is the study of right and wrong. Apr 29, 2013 · A moral dilemma of a father with utilitarianism vs deontology essay a sick child. Consequentialist moral theories are teleological: they aim at some sample thesis on basel goal state and evaluate the morality of actions in terms of progress toward that state Immanuel Kant: utilitarianism vs deontology essay Metaphysics. It is also referred to as moral philosophy and analyzes the principles that. com : should biotechnology abolish suffering? UTILITARIANISM RESOURCES. tilitarianism is a school of thought identified with the writings of Jeremy utilitarianism vs deontology essay Bentham and James Mill. By James Fieser From a general summary to chapter summaries to explanations of famous quotes, the SparkNotes Utilitarianism Study Guide has everything you need to ace quizzes, …. Deontological Ethics. research paper on the effects of divorce on the children Ethics utilitarianism vs deontology essay Theories- Utilitarianism Vs. essay short story title Utilitarianism is mainly characterized by two elements: happiness and consequentialism. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most influential philosophers in the history of Western philosophy. Deontology vs Teleology essays on maus by art spiegelman Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves questions about morality and the perception of good and evil, of. Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility in maximizing happiness or pleasure as summed. Describes the field and its division in metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Not utilitarianism vs deontology essay only that it directs individuals to do utilitarianism vs deontology essay what is right or. utilitarianism. THERE ARE few circumstances among those which make up the present condition of human utilitarianism vs deontology essay knowledge, more unlike …. Raised by his father, the philosopher utilitarianism vs deontology essay James Mill, on strictly Benthamite. The requirement to vaccinate children against diseases thesis twitter button such as polio, measles, and whooping cough is an example of utilitarianism, or serving the public good, as.
Patient-centered deontological theories are often conceived inagent-neutral reason-giving terms. John has a right to the exclusiveuse of his body, labor, and talents, and such a right gives everyoneequal reason to do actions respecting it. But this aspect ofpatient-centered deontological theories gives rise to a particularlyvirulent form of the so-called paradox of deontology (Scheffler1988)—that if respecting Mary's and Susan's rights is asimportant morally as is protecting John's rights, then why isn'tviolating John's rights permissible (or even obligatory) when doing sois necessary to protect Mary's and Susan's rights from being violatedby others? Patient-centered deontological theories might arguably dobetter if they abandoned their pretense of being agent-neutral. Theycould conceive of rights as giving agent-relative reasons to eachactor to refrain from doing actions violative of such rights. Take thecore right against being used without one's consent hypothesizedearlier. The correlative duty is not to use another without hisconsent. If such duty is agent-relative, then the rights-baseddeontologist (no less than the agent-centered deontologist) has theconceptual resources to answer the paradox of deontology. That is,each of us may not use John, even when such using of John wouldminimize usings of John by others in the future. Such duties arepersonal to each of us in that we may not justify our violating such aduty now by preventing others' similar violations in the future. Suchpersonal duties are agent-centered in the sense that the agency ofeach person is central to the duties of each person, so thatyour using of another now cannot be traded off against otherpossible usings at other times by other people.
Patient-centered deontologists handle differently other stock examplesof the agent-centered deontologist. Take the acceleration cases as anexample. When all will die in a lifeboat unless one is killed andeaten; when Siamese twins are conjoined such that both will die unlessthe organs of one are given to the other via an operation that killsthe first; when all of a group of soldiers will die unless the body ofone is used to hold down the enemy barbed wire, allowing the rest tosave themselves; when a group of villagers will all be shot by ablood-thirsty tyrant unless they select one of their numbers to slakethe tyrants lust for death—in all such cases, thecausing/accelerating-distinguishing agent-centered deontologists wouldpermit the killing but the usings-focused patient-centereddeontologist would not. (For the latter, all killings are merelyaccelerations of death.)