Utilitarianism and Deontology
The decision-making process of an individual is affected by several factors. The consequences faced due to the making of a particular decision are the main factor considered before making any decision. Generally, every choice leads to inevitable consequences and individuals always use prudence in choosing the decision to select. Decision making is however not an easy task. Contradicting factors always come in to affect the decision made by an individual. Utilitarianism and deontology are confusing ideologies that present a tough choice to any decision maker. Utilitarianism allows an individual to make a decision based on the outcome of choosing a particular decision. Utilitarianism focuses on the common good for a large number of people. On the other hand, deontology theory argues based on the action at the instance of happening and is not concerned with the outcomes. Utilitarianism is always the best theory to choose when faced with a dilemma since deontology could lead to tragedy in the long run.
Deciding without considering the possible outcomes could be tragic in the long run. The idea behind deontology is that an action should only be chosen if its right and no justification should be made concerning possible outcomes (Martin, Iles & Rosen, 2016). For example, a driver in a busy road notices a pedestrian who has just entered the road and has to decide between running over the pedestrian and applying emergency breaks. The theory of deontology would propose that the right thing to do is to use emergency breaks since any other decision would mean killing the pedestrian, which is morally wrong. However, utilitarianism presents the possible consequences that will follow if the driver chooses to save the life of a single pedestrian. Being a busy road, the most immediate possibility is that emergency breaks will cause a collision with vehicles behind the driver’s car. A crash endangers the lives of the driver, passengers and other road users who are at the right side of the road. Another possible outcome is that the vehicle will overturn, killing the passengers in it. Therefore, utilitarianism should be chosen since it presents a more cautious approach to events than deontology, which only considers the current possibility.
Deontology limits decision makers to their duty and discourages flexibility. Generally, the reaction towards a particular event could be different if the same incident occurred in a different place. The course of action towards responding to an event depends on the environment within which the event has occurred (Gawronski & Beer, 2017). However, the theory of deontology limits the decision maker to only consider the course of action that is right and not the most cautious. A case in hand is the issue of abortion. Abortion can be morally acceptable or morally unacceptable depending on the issue being solved. Under normal circumstances, abortion involves taking the life of a fetus and is wrong. However, the situation at hand could make abortion the only viable solution to a particular problem. For example, a doctor could be faced with a dilemma of saving the life of a mother during delivery or losing both the mother and the child. Deontology would argue that abortion constitutes murder and should never be chosen as an option. Such an argument appears sensible under the moral considerations. However, the sense gets lost if two lives are lost because a doctor decided to not take one life. Utilitarianism, in this case, would allow the doctor to carry out an abortion to prevent the outcome of losing two lives in the process. The decision would appear selfish since the child is not involved in the decision making, but it is the most cautious decision to make, given the current situation.
Utilitarianism employs sense unlike deontology, which is based on fixed rules and beliefs. As a theory, utilitarianism sets boundaries beyond which an action cannot be taken under the excuse of avoiding extreme outcomes. The sense in utilitarianism is based on the allowance for flexibility concerning the various events that might present themselves. For example, in a hospital setting where ten patients are at the risk of losing their lives if a particular organ transplant is not performed, utilitarianism does not advise the doctor to kill a random individual in the hospital environment to save the ten lives. From a certain point of view, the idea could be viable according to the argument presented by the theory of utilitarianism since only one life needs to be lost to save the ten lives. However, a more severe consequence due to the decision made make no sense. The probability that one person might be killed and then the organ transplant is a failure leaves the decision with more significant weakness. The most viable option here becomes to save one life at the expense of losing eleven lives while trying to save ten lives. If killing the eleventh person was morally right, the deontology would propose the killing to be done (Białek & Neys, 2017). Therefore, utilitarianism presents the most cautious course of action in the event of several available options and is stronger than deontology.
In sum, utilitarianism and deontology present contradicting options for a decision maker. Both theories can be applicable in several occasions depending on the nature of the situation at hand. A decision maker should therefore be led by prudence before choosing the theory to consider whenever making a decision. However, utilitarianism is the most sensible theory to consider before taking a course of action since it gives the most cautious presentation of an action and avoids the occurrence of extreme consequences.
References
Białek, M., & De Neys, W. (2017). Dual processes and moral conflict: Evidence for deontological reasoners’ intuitive utilitarian sensitivity. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(2), 148-167.
Gawronski, B., & Beer, J. S. (2017). What makes moral dilemma judgments “utilitarian” or “deontological”?. Social neuroscience, 12(6), 626-632.
Martin, A., Iles, A., & Rosen, C. (2016). Applying utilitarianism and deontology in managing bisphenol-a risks in the united states. HYLE: International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 22, 79-103.