Rule-Utilitarianism:Bridging The Gap Between Consequentialist And Deontological Theories Of Morality

Updated on October 16, 2009 Trevor Coffrin moreContact Author There are lots of competing ethical theories, all of which strive to determine what constitutes proper ethical action. Consequentialists argue that the value of moral actions ought to be judged based mostly upon the consequences produced by one’s motion. Deontologists argue that we've got a duty to carry out certain actions regardless of their consequences. However, in troublesome moral dilemmas, each consequentialist and deontological theories of morality can violate our ethical intuitions. Generally speaking, when confronted with a moral dilemma, many individuals often take into consideration a number of things to determine how one must act. One consider our moral deliberations is the consequences that our actions will result in. Utilitarianism is maybe the most famous form of consequentialism. Classic utilitarianism argues that proper ethical motion is that action which produces the best quantity of happiness for the greatest number of people. On an intuitive degree we really feel that penalties are related in evaluating the ethical price of an action. We feel that if we are able to create, on steadiness, more happiness than unhappiness, we have done a morally good thing.

Sometimes we even really feel that penalties ought to take priority over sure ethical rules or principles that we'd in any other case follow. So as to focus on the importance we place on creating good penalties, allow us to consider the following example. Suppose you are strolling down an alley and as you round a nook a lady runs by you. You look forward and see that she is being chased by a man you strongly suspect to be a assassin (maybe he's lined in blood, is holding a knife, and screaming “I’m going to kill you, Sally”). Suppose additional, that as the lady rounds the corner you see her slip behind a dumpster to cover. As the man approaches you, he asks should you saw which direction the woman went. Surely many people would conclude that the suitable factor to do in this case is to lie. We will think that mendacity is the perfect course of action just because mendacity will produce the best penalties.

Though we really feel that good outcomes are vital in moral conditions, many feel that consequences usually are not the sole consideration for figuring out the ethical value of actions. The truth is, Kantian deontology holds that consequences are not at all relevant in determining the moral worth of an action; fairly, Kant grounded ethics in human reason. Before explaining the intuitive appeal of Kantian deontology, it should first be mandatory to present an account of Kant’s ethical theory. Given the complexity of Kant’s ethical theory, I will solely give a quick sketch here. I will have to assume that the reader is already acquainted with the finer particulars of his basic work. Kant argued that morality was grounded in human cause, and that motive demands that our moral actions be universalizable and logically constant. Kant thought these rules of human reason have been greatest expressed via what he called, the categorical imperative. Kant’s categorical crucial is as follows: “Act only in keeping with that maxim by which you'll be able to at the identical time will that it should turn into a common law”(Kant, p.

Essentially what Kant is saying right here is that we should act solely by those guidelines that could consistently be willed as common rules for all to follow. Kant’s categorical imperative incorporates quite a lot of essential notions in ethics. The primary notion is that one ought to not make an exception for one’s self. It is extensively held that if a moral action is unsuitable for me to carry out, it's equally mistaken so that you can carry out. This is so as a result of we see persons as being of equal moral value. That our value is equal means no one is extra morally valuable than one other, and so we're all due equal respect. Provided that we're of equal ethical value and due equal respect, no one has a proper to make an exception for one’s self. The second notion, which is carefully associated to the principle of universalizability, is the significance of maintaining logical consistency in our ethical actions. Kant argued that we are obligation-bound to act rationally, because to act irrationally is to act contrary to our nature as rational brokers.

I'll explain this in additional detail below. Kant additionally provided a second formulation of the categorical imperative, which he thought was “basically identical” to the primary formulation acknowledged above. Kant’s second formulation is as follows: “Act so that you deal with humanity, whether or not in your own particular person or in that of one other, always as an end and by no means as a method only”(Kant, p. It is vital to note that Kant is just not saying that one should by no means use one other as a means to some end; he is saying that one ought to by no means use one other merely as a way. It is often the case that we use others as means to our ends without appearing wrongly. For instance, I use my native grocer as a way to get food to feed my family. However, I don't act wrongly in doing so as a result of I don't use her merely as a method to my ends. One remaining side of Kantian ethics that must be mentioned briefly is the notion of perfect and imperfect duties. Kant saw excellent duties as ethical absolutes, duties we must do, or as he put it, “a obligation which permits no exception” (Kant, p.

how do you write a philosophy paper