Introduction
Problematic or controversial situations often challenge people’s morals as they require difficult decision-making. A moral dilemma refers to a scenario where the choice between two opposite possibilities is equally challenging (Savulescu and Wilkinson 70). To address such issues, various ethical theories can be implemented, such as consequentialism or deontology. These approaches differ in their essence as they are based on opposite perspectives on life: individual-centered and society-centered (Savulescu and Wilkinson 70). In deontology, the outcomes and consequences may not justify the means to achieve a goal, while in consequentialism, the results determine the means, and significant benefit is expected for the greatest possible number of people. In this regard, I can discuss a recent ethical dilemma that I faced. I was walking down the street when I saw several banknotes near an empty bus stop. The road was empty, and it would be impossible to identify the owner of the cash. At the same time, no one would likely know if I wanted to pocket the money. This essay aims to discuss the moral choice I faced, analyzing it from the perspectives of consequentialism and deontology.
The Perspective of Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)
To analyze the given dilemma from the point of view of utilitarianism, it is necessary to define this approach and its core principles. According to Portmore, consequentialist moral theory, with utilitarianism as its main version, “takes the good to be primary and identifies right action as action that promotes value” (380). In this regard, the purpose of an act becomes the defining element of moral evaluation. Such an approach resonates with the theories of Betham and Mill, who believed in the importance of the greatest benefit to as many people as possible in a particular scenario (Portmore 17). The degree of harm should also be evaluated during the decision-making process.
In my case, applying the utilitarianist perspective would require me to consider the benefits and disadvantages caused by my choice regarding money. I could not identify the owner of the money as there was no card or contact information, and I could not know who had actually lost the banknotes. I could try to find the person who owned the money but the chances for success were low as there was no one nearby. Moreover, some people might use the situation to their benefit and lie about being the owner. In turn, pocketing the money would benefit me at the expense of the person who had lost it and can hardly be identified. Another alternative would be to pick up the banknotes and donate them to charity, which would follow the principle of the greatest benefit and least harm. In doing so, I would not act selfishly, but I would still handle someone else’s money as if it was mine, which is morally wrong. For instance, the owner might realize their mistake and search for the banknotes, which would not be there if I took and donated them.
In this regard, two different types of consequentialism should be discussed. Act utilitarianism refers to an ethical approach based on the idea of choosing the most useful option for most people (Savulescu and Wilkinson 75). From this perspective, donating the money would be the most appropriate decision as it allows for helping the vulnerable population. Alternatively, rule utilitarianism focuses on following the rules to achieve the most happiness possible (Savulescu and Wilkinson 75). In this regard, the correct action would be to bring the money to the police. Overall, the consequentialist or utilitarian perspective on the given moral dilemma allows for various activities.
The Perspective of Deontology (Emmanuel Kant)
Deontology is the exact opposite of utilitarianism when it comes to defining its core principles and concepts. When evaluating actions, this theory takes into account not only the consequences but also the motives, intentions, and means for the implementation of a certain act (García 12). In this regard, the notions of obligations and rights are applicable to the assessment of people’s actions, regardless of the benefits that they generate. This ethical theory is centered around the principles of duty, dignity, and good will, which are essential for Emmanuel Kant (Garcia 12). Deontology does not believe in the idea of the result justifying the means. On the contrary, deontologists argue that if a moral rule can be violated by one person in a given scenario, it can be broken by everyone else (García 35). Therefore, ethical obligations cannot function with such an approach when rules are not followed.
In the given scenario, applying Kant’s point of view would mean that I should follow the rules and do my duty to return the money to the owner. As per Kant, one fundamental moral principle exists and requires individuals to always consider other people as ends, not as means (García 35). This principle is a practical imperative, and it focuses on human behavior and intentions rather than on the consequences of certain actions. Similarly, the categorical imperative emphasizes the moral law that is not defined by any end goal (García 35). The imperative is the unconditional basis of all ethics and the foundation for an objective principle that directs human will and guides individuals’ actions. Unlike consequentialism, which judges actions by their results, deontology does not require any weighing of the costs and benefits of a situation, eliminating subjectivity and uncertainty.
At the same time, Kant’s approach considers the fact that people often cannot control the situation and multiple associated factors completely. External obstacles can affect the problem and its outcomes in numerous ways (Garcia 36). As a consequence, the actual result of one’s action can differ significantly from the intended one. For instance, if I turn to the police, the officer might pocket the money themselves, which would nullify the beneficial effect of following my moral duty. However, as per utilitarianism, such a negative result can be justified as long as the cause of the adverse effect is not caused by my intention but by uncontrollable external factors (Garcia 36). As can be seen, a deontological perspective on the selected issue is based on the principle of moral duty and good will.
Conclusion
To conclude, both utilitarianism and deontology provide a foundation for moral judgment based on different principles and values. The use of the utilitarianist approach for my ethical dilemma requires me to consider the consequences of my action and to act to generate the most benefit for society. The strengths of this theory include focusing on humanity and the needs of people in need, as well as causing the least harm possible. At the same time, its weaknesses are an unrealistic approach and a lack of predictability of the outcomes of the decision made. The deontologist approach requires me to act in accordance with moral rules and obligations before society. This perspective’s advantages are certainty and a clear foundation for working in accordance with regulations. However, in my dilemma, deontology does not consider the outcomes of my actions and can cause a paradox when someone else pockets the money.
Works Cited
García, Esther V. Ethics, Law and Professional Deontology. ESIC Editorial, 2021.
Portmore, Douglas W., editor. The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism. Oxford UP, 2020.
Savulescu, Julian, and Dominic Wilkinson. “Consequentialism and the Law in Medicine.” Philosophical Foundations of Medical Law, edited by de Campos Thana C., et al., Oxford UP, 2019, pp. 68-87.