Consequentialism and Deontology are two different ways to look at the world. Consequentialism is when the results of the moral action are what count. The moral decision in a consequentialist system always the one with the best results. Deontology is when goodness must be done for the sake of duty. In a deontological system, doing the right thing for the right reason with the right motivation matters the most. Utilitarianism is about maximizing good or minimizing evil. People must make sure of having more pleasure than evil. People must pick the good situation instead of the bad situation. Kantianism is an act according to the maxim whereby a person can at the same time will that it should be a universal law. A deontological system such as Kantianism is the ethical system that makes the best case which morality is really about. Morality is about the difference between good and bad behavior. Deontological systems have two decisions whereas consequentialist systems have only one decision.
According to the moral law reading, Kant states, “Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law. (Kant 250).” This quote states that duty is an essential part of the law. One must follow their duty. There are consequences when one person breaks the law. It is immoral when a person violates the law. Kant refers to good reasons aren’t justifiable for terrible behaviors. If the duty is something a person hates, a person must do this duty no matter how much a person doesn’t like it or likes the duty.
According to Kant’s theory reading, Frankena states, “Kant wasn’t regarding all maxims one can will to be universal laws as duties, but only holding that maxim one cannot will to be universal law are immoral or wrong to act on (Frankena 262).” Kant states that it is wrong to act on a maxim if and only if one person cannot let it be a universal law. It is a duty to act on a maxim even if the person cannot let the opposite side to be a universal law. Kant also states that it is allowed to act on a maxim even if the person can let it be a universal law.
According to the Deontology and Ethics article, Austin Cline states, “…If you have a moral duty not to lie, then lying is always wrong – even if that results in harm to others (Cline)…” This quote states that a person will act immorally if they lied about something suspicious. People don’t want others to get harm because of the duty of acting immoral. They don’t want danger happening to others. For example, a person would act immorally if they lied to the police about hiding a specific person or criminal. It is immoral to lie to a police officer because it can hold a person responsible for their lies. They can get in a serious amount of trouble for lying to a law enforcement officer. The amount of trouble a person can face for lying to a law enforcement officer is getting arrested by an officer.
According to the Deontological Ethics article on the Plato website, the authors state, “A deontologist can do more that is morally praiseworthy than morality demand. A consequentialist cannot, assuming none of the consequentialists defensive maneuvers earlier referenced work (Alexander and Moore).” Alexander and Moore stated that there are more things that a deontologist can do more than a consequentialist can do. As a consequentialist, if one’s act is not morally demanded then it is wrong and banned. As a deontologist, there are acts that are neither morally wrong nor demanded.
According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, “Ross’s Critique of Ideal Utilitarianism,” Simpson states three complaints that Ross has against Utilitarianism, which are “…Utilitarianism is simplistic and reductive… Utilitarianism is too general and abstract… the fundamental principle of utilitarianism – that an act is right if it produces the most overall good – is at odds with common sense morality (Simpson)…” Ross argues that some part of the moral relationships is being ignored. Utilitarianism basically an ethical concept that is not as much as serious as Ross would think of. Ross also argues that the act with the most good is the one that is definitely right in utilitarianism. Deontology is about the differentiation between good and bad behavior. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, “Deontological Pluralism and Prima Facie Duties,” Simpson states that “Ross’s ethical system is deontological and anti-consequentialist since it is based on the rules or duties rather than the outcomes (Simpson).” Ross recognizes several different rules or principles pointed out as Prima Facie Duties. Prima Facie Duty is real and very clear. Ross points out seven prima facie duties, which are Fidelity, Reparation, Gratitude, Non-maleficence, Beneficence, Self-improvement and Justice.
According to Ross seven prima facie duties, Fidelity is about making an effort of keeping promises and being honest. Reparation is about getting satisfaction when somebody has been wrongfully accused of something. Gratitude is about being grateful to others when they do something that benefits others. Non-maleficence is preventing from others being physically harmed. Beneficence is about being kind to others and try to improve things like “their health, wisdom, security, happiness, and well-being (Simpson).” Self-improvement is basically the same as beneficence. Justice is about being fair and trying to receive benefits that are even and equal to all people.
Intuitionism is the logic view where some moral truths can be known without any logical thought. There are problems with Intuitionism. . According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, “Problems with Institution,” Simpson states, “Ross in fact denies that we directly “see” or perceive moral properties or moral truths. What he claims is that we have an intuitive ability to apprehend certain self-evident, fundamental moral facts – such as that lying and harming others are prima facie wrong (Simpson).” Ross is not seeing the moral truth whereas others can see the moral truth. Prima Facie Wrong is when there is a moral reason against doing the act. Ross is not seeing the correct prima facie duty.
According to the “The day cannot be too far off: Williams against Utilitarianism” article on the Plato website, Chappell states how Williams is opposed to Utilitarianism. According to the article, Bernard Williams states that, “Consequentialism is basically indifferent to whether a state of affairs consists in what I do, or is produced by what I do, where that notion is itself wide… All that consequentialism is interested in is the idea of these doings being consequences of what I do, and that is an idea broad enough to include relations (Chappell).” This quote by Bernard Williams explains why consequentialism has a stronger rule of negative responsibility. Williams is not very impressed by those characteristics. Williams argues, “…He thinks that there is a real and crucial distinction that is closely related to them (Chappell)…”