The world of ethical sciences stands on two primary principles – consequentialism and deontological theories. Each hypothesis is divided into many subsequent branches, which form a more detailed picture of the moral teachings. There is a significant difference between the two approaches, which will be further discussed in the paper. Summarily, consequentialism mainly judges the moral worth of actions results, while deontological ethics focus more on the nature of the acts as a whole.
When talking about consequentialism, this principle evokes biased thoughts in my head. It is simple in the core theory believing that normative properties only depend on consequences (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019). When I reflected on it, I realized that this historical theory was embedded in us as children, when parents talked about what would be the consequences of a particular action. Consequentialism is built around the belief that what is best is whatever makes our world or at least our lives better, emphasizing that the past cannot be changed. To some extent, I relate to this theory; however, the morality of actions does not depend on the act’s outcomes, rather a combination of a deed, its the intention, and then the result.
The most well-known branch of the consequentialism theory is utilitarianism. This morality approach was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who described it as a form of comparison of the action’s consequence utility and followed a goal of bringing happiness to as many people as possible (LaFolette, 2007). Personally, this method does not fully represent my way of thinking, as utilitarianism concentrates entirely on the ending result of the actions, justifying or ignoring the means of how it is done.
Despite that the beliefs of the theory to be absurd in a way, consequentialism may explain some conventional humane institutions. People tend to presume that they need to do good when they can; therefore, any ethical constraints or moral choices must be determined and added to the theory’s just reasoning (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019). In case objections are absent for anything beyond the consequences, they may be the determinant of the rightful morality of an action, which is the foundation of the consequentialism theory. Nevertheless, my personal beliefs do not tend to lean towards this theory, although I do not disavow it either.
The deontological theories correspond to my personal values more, as they focus on the morality of the actions. The main principles of this hypothesis rely on the ethical rules based on which the acts are judged. Contemporary philosophy tractates deontology as a set of normative standards, which determine what is right or wrong, forbidden, or permitted (Alexander & Moore, 2016). The theory provides people with a guide of what they ought to do, assesses their choices, and defines what kind of person they are.
Compared to consequentialism, deontological theories judge the morality of actions, by certain criteria of right or wrong, rather than depending on the outcomes of an act. For that reason, I lean more towards this hypothesis, because one cannot justify the actions only by the moral result of it, disregarding whatever means were used to complete it. Some choices simply cannot be explained by their effects, because they are morally forbidden, no matter how good their consequences are.
Therefore, my personal beliefs correspond more with the deontological theories, as I am a believer in set moral values that bring together the community and keep it organized. Without the assessment of actions virtue, the world would turn into chaos, where the means would be justified, and the morals would be disregarded. Undoubtedly, it is impossible to constantly adhere to the “right” actions; however, such norms contribute to society’s overall organizations.
References
Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2016). Deontological ethics. Stanford.Edu.
LaFolette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Blackwell Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019). Consequentialism. Stanford.Edu.