Deontology and Consquentialism
Two Opposing Ethical Theories and Their Main Criticisms
The word deontology comes from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. According to this theory, it is your duty to do actions which are right and not do those which are wrong. Actions are thought to be right or wrong in themselves. For example, killing people and lying are wrong, sharing with others who are in need is right. Immanuel Kant was a famous deontologist.
Consequentialism is based on the consequences of actions. It is sometimes called a teleological theory, from the Greek word telos, meaning goal. According to consequentialism, actions are right or wrong depending on whether their consequences further the goal. The goal (or, "the good") can be something like the happiness of all people or the spreading of peace and safety. Anything which contributes to that goal is right and anything which does not is wrong. Actions are thought to have no moral value in themselves (no rightness or wrongness), but only get moral value from whether or not they lead to the goal. John Stuart Mill was a famous consequentialist.
Examples of Consequentialism and Deontology
Consequentialists would say that killing people is not right or wrong in itself, it depends on the outcome. Killing an innocent child would be a bad thing because it would decrease the happiness of its family and have no good results. Killing a terrorist would be a good thing because, although it would upset his family, it would make people safer.
Most people have a mixture of consequentialist and deontological ideas about morality. The quickest way of finding out which one you are at heart is to do what philosophers call a thought experiment, called "Would you shoot the hostage?"
While trekking in the Andes you come across a guerilla leader who has captured 20 local villagers. The guerilla says if you will shoot one hostage he will let the other 19 go free. If you refuse to shoot, he will kill all 20. In the thought experiment the guerilla leader is telling the truth and you have only two choices: to shoot, or to refuse. Choose to shoot, and you are a consequentialist, motivated by saving the 19 innocent people. Choose to refuse, and you are a deontologist, motivated by the fact that it is always wrong to kill an innocent person.
Criticisms of Consequentialism and Deontology
There are criticisms of both systems. The main criticism of deontology is that it is selfish, a way of avoiding getting your hands dirty (in a moral sense) while still allowing terrible things to happen. For instance, in the thought experiment you would not have shot anybody but 20 innocent people would still die. You could have prevented this outcome if you weren't afraid to take any guilt on yourself.
The answer to this criticism is that a person can only be morally responsible for his or her own behaviour. The 20 people will be killed by the guerilla leader. He is the one who should be doing things differently. If he were to follow deontological principles, no-one would be killed.
The main criticism of consequentialism is that it would allow any action in pursuit of a good cause, even actions that most people would say were clearly morally wrong, such as torture, killing children, genocide, etc.
A common defence is that these things would only be done in situations so extreme they would probably never happen. This is not a good defence because things like torture and mass murder regularly take place in the name of the greater good. A better argument, for the truly convinced consequentialist, is that no action can be right or wrong in itself. If "dreadful" actions lead to a good result then it is the perception that the actions are dreadful which is wrong, not the actions themselves.
Immuanel Kant, a famous deontologist
|
What do you think about this article?
Latest Articles