Category: Deontology

Probably the most complex of all the ethical systems we look at here is Kantian logic, which is a deontological theory. The word deontology comes from the Greek word deon, meaning “obligation” or “duty.” It is an ethical system primarily concerned with one’s duty. It is also known as ethical formalism or absolutism.

Deontology was formulated by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant believed that the end result is not of primary importance; rather, the real importance is in determining the moral intent of a decision or action itself. Kant would assess the morality of one’s action and disregard the consequences. He further believed that we have duties that are imperative and that these duties must never be abandoned, regardless of the anticipated outcome. These duties, according to Kant, are absolute and must be applied to everyone equally.

The notion of duty is important to law enforcement officers who are bound by law to perform their duty. A duty is something we are required to execute, regardless of whether we want to or not. The duty may have a personal or professional negative consequence attached to it, but as it is a requirement or obligation, it is absolute and/or imperative.

Kant distinguished two types of duties: conditional or hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative is a duty that is necessary to accomplish a specific goal. It is something that we do to achieve an end. Banks (2013) uses the example of the duty of a student to study hard in order to get good grades. In law enforcement, we may look at the hypothetical duty of a patrol officer to write as many search warrants as possible to be considered for a detective job.

A categorical imperative is an unconditional rule or duty. Regardless of the impact on you that the decision may cause, the duty remains the same and must be done. In this way, the act is unrelated to the end result; it is a duty regardless of the outcome. One example in law enforcement is a domestic assault policy that imposes a duty on a police officer to charge a spouse with an assault if evidence exists. This is a duty regardless of the outcome or the wishes of the officer. The duty in this case is policy written by the British Columbia Attorney General’s office. The categorical imperative does not only have to be written policy; a police officer who stops a violator may have a duty to write the ticket if certain conditions of the violator stop warrant it, such as the danger of the activity and the driving history of the driver. There is much to say about the categorical imperative for law enforcement; however, for the purposes of this book, we will concentrate on only a portion.

Within the categorical imperative, Kant (2006) states that “…every rational being, exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means.” Kant is saying that we should never use people to attain our desired end result; that we should treat everyone with respect regardless of the outcome. O’Neil (1986) uses an example in which a person deliberately makes a promise to another person without ever intending to honour that promise. In this sense, the person who is being deceived cannot consent because the rule, or maxim, of the first person is not known. In a law enforcement context, a police investigator who promises a witness that she will not have to testify against someone if she gives a statement would not be respecting that person and would be using her as a means to an end. An officer would know that this is not a promise that should be made as it is ultimately up to Crown counsel to determine who testifies and who does not. Kant would argue that the promise is using the witness as means to an end, and therefore not ethical. A law enforcement officer must decide whether to follow a consequentialist perspective, in which the consequences of his or her actions are more important, or a Kantian perspective in which the witness ought not to be used as a means to the effective ends.

Coercion is also a way in which Kant would suggest that respect is not shown. Given the powers that law enforcement officers yield, coercion is a tactic that, while perhaps producing an effective end to an investigation, would be wrong in Kant’s view regardless of the outcome because the coercion did not allow the other party to consent to the act. Kant’s conclusion is the following maxim: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end…”

Universality. Kant suggests that we should consider the implications of our actions as if they were universal. If we are considering not paying transit fares by jumping over the turnstiles, we should consider the implications if all transit users did not pay. In a law enforcement context, we should consider the ramifications of our actions. For example, a lead investigator may consider misleading the media in order to trick a suspect into making a mistake and exposing himself. When the investigator applies the universality rule (i.e., the spectre of all investigators lying to the media universally), it allows the investigator to consider the negative ramifications of the action, even if the lie was made with the intentions of bringing out a moral consequence. This is comparable to rule utilitarianism, in which the universal application of actions should be considered.

Law enforcement officers are required at times to fulfill their duty no matter what the personal costs. When confronted with a duty that they may not want to perform, the officers should consider that they agreed to perform duties when they swore their oath. These duties must be performed by someone, and when this duty falls to them, they must do their duty. For example, a patrol officer who does not want to criminally charge an acquaintance must consider her duty and the oath that she took when she joined the agency. The caveat to duty is that the duty must be done in good faith; that is, the duty should not be performed if the officer is aware that there is a lack of morality in the duty. It is often said among experienced police officers, “you are paid not for what you do, but for what you might have to do.” This maxim refers to dangerous duty that you may not want to do, but are paid to do, and ought to do.

Law enforcement officers facing a dilemma in which rule utilitarianism and Kantian logic are at odds should further understand that the choice between the two schools of thought will yield different outcomes, and that the two schools of thought will help the officer understand the options and how to rationalize the decision made. It is not easy to know what option to choose, but officers should take into account the stakeholders involved, including witnesses, suspects, society, the agency and of course themselves.

Outline of Deontological Ethics

The term deontology comes from the Greek word deon, “duty”, and logos, “science”. In Deontological ethics, an action is considered morally good based on the action itself. It’s not based on the product of the action. “Deontology ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare”. (Britannica, 2019)

The most common form of Deontology holds that some actions cannot be justified by their effects and that no matter how beneficial the consequences are, some choices are morally forbidden. It means disregarding the possible consequences of our actions when determining what is right and what is wrong. If an act is not seen as being in the right, it may not be undertaken, no matter the good that it may produce. (Alexander et al, 2016)

A typical thought: there are some things one should never do, no matter what. These things include intentionally killing the innocent, raping them, and torturing them. Even in the scenario in which more happiness was created by doing any of these, one simply ought not to do them as it is morally wrong. (Russ, 2013)

Immanuel Kant

The first philosopher to describe deontological principles was Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804). Kant believed that nothing is good without qualification except goodwill, goodwill is only one that acts in concurrence with the moral law, and out of respect for that law against our instincts. Kant believed that it was plausible to create a consistent moral system by using reason. (Britannica, 2019).

Furthermore, Kant believed that goodwill alone must be good in whatever context it may be found. He conclude that “goodwill” was the right action, Regardless of the consequences. Kant’s version of duty-based ethics was based on supreme moral principles he characterized as the “categorical Imperative”(CI) which he intended to be the basis of all other rules. An ethical rule is only a valid moral rule if you claim it can be applied to everyone. (BBC, 2014)

Advantages of Deontology

Deontological ethics create a baseline for human conduct. The “golden rule” is found throughout the history of human societies. Summarised in the phrase: “do you want to others as you would have them do unto you”. (Natalie, 2019)

The main advantage of Deontology is the importance in the value of every human. Duty-based systems focus on providing equal respect to all human beings, no what their nationality or background. This set of ethics provides a foundation for all human rights. (Natalie, 2019)

Deontological theories have the potential for explaining why certain people have the moral standing to complain about and hold those accountable for breaching moral duties. (Alexander et al, 2016)

Disadvantages of Deontology

Deontological ethics creates a paradox. Deontologists need their own, non-consequentialist model of rationality, one that is a viable alternative to the intuitively plausible “act-to-produce-the-best-consequences” model of rationality that motivates consequentialist theories. Hence, deontology will always be paradoxical. (Alexander et al, 2016)

There are situations where obedience to deontological norms will bring about disastrous consequences. For example, If A violates the deontological duty not to torture an innocent person (B), thousands of other innocent people will die due to a bomb. If A is forbidden by deontological morality from torturing B, many would regard that as a reduction ad absurdum of deontology. (Alexander et al, 2016)

Deontological ethics become useful as obscure excuses, One of the biggest contradictions to Kant’s interpretation of deontology, is a person’s actions may have moral worth, even if the action is wrong, as long as it meets these four criteria: a person must believe their moral principal requires the action, the person believes that the action is morally required must be enough of an incentive to carry the action out, the person must do their very best to achieve the goal of the action, finally, they must have a genuine effort to determine what their duty is. This can be compared to WW2, that an “odious action” of a Nazi would have moral worth by this criterion. The Nazi’s actions would have more moral worth than the action of a person who does the right thing based on inclination rather than duty. (Kerstein, 2002).

Brief Outline of Consequentialism

Consequentialism illustrates that actions should be judged right or wrong based on their consequences. The most basic form of consequentialism is classical utilitarianism, which argues that an action is right or wrong according to whether it maximizes the net balance of pleasure over pain in the universe. (Britannica, 2009)

The important and still popular theory embodies the basic intuition that what is best or right is whatever makes the world best in the future, because we cannot change the past. It is claimed in the slogan that an act is right if and only if it causes “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”. (Sinnott et al, 2019)

Deontology vs. Consequentialism

Consequentialists consider what things are good and identify ‘right’ actions as the ones that produce the maximum of those good things. In comparison, Deontology tends to do it the other way around, they first consider what actions are ‘right’ and proceed from there. (BBC, 2014)

Consequentialist ethics theories bring a degree of uncertainty to ethical decision-making, no one can be certain about the consequences of a particular action. Duty-based ethics (deontology) don’t suffer from this problem because they are concerned with the action itself, if an action is right, then a person should do it. (BBC, 2014)

Take, for example, there is an active shooter in the school, you lie to the shooter, informing him the police are on the way and about to arrive. This is not permitted because you are breaching deontological ethics, on the contrary, by doing the action, your outcome is beneficial as the shooter could flee the scene, thus, saving hundreds of lives. (Natalie, 2019)

References

1. Alexander, Larry, and Moore, Michael, Edward N. Zalta(editor), 21 Nov 2007, Deontological Ethics, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Winter 2016 Edition), Metaphysics Research lab, Stanford University, [ONLINE] Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ethics-deontological/ [Accessed 15 October 2019]
2. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 08 March 2019,
3. Deontological Ethics, Encyclopaedia Britannica, [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/deontological-ethics [Accessed 15 October 2019]
4. Russ Shafer-Landau, 2013, Ethical Theory An Anthology, Second Edition, Wiley-Blackwell ( John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), Oxford UK.
5. Johnson, Robert and Cureton, Adam, 2019, Kant’s Moral Philosophy, Spring 2019, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University [ONLINE] Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/kant-moral/ [Accessed 16 October 2019]
6. Kerstein, Samuel J., 2002, Kant’s Search for the Supreme Principle of Morality, Cambridge University Press.
7. [ONLINE] Available at: https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/kant-s-search-for-the-supreme-principle-of-morality/ [Accessed 16 October 2019]
8. BBC, 2014, Duty based ethics, [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml [Accessed 16 October 2019]
9. Natalie Regoli, 15 January 2019, 12 Pros and Cons of Deontological Ethics, [ONLINE] Available at: https://connectusfund.org/12-pros-and-cons-of-deontological-ethics [Accessed 16 October 2019]
10. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 03 March 2009, Consequentialism, Encyclopaedia Britannica, [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/consequentialism [Accessed 16 October 2019]
11. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, 2019, Consequentialism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019), Metaphysics Research lab, Stanford University, [ONLINE] Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/consequentialism/ [Accessed 16 October 2019]

Consequentialism its Role and Importance to Ethical Thinking

Introduction

As one of the most important Ethical study theories, Consequentialism has been widely concerned by philosophers since it was put forward, and many of its versions occupy an important position in philosophy. A well-known problem of Consequentialism is that it does take into account the influence of activity results instead of the process (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2003). Generally, ethical thinking is not identical to other subjects and always could not be unambiguously to get an ethical conclusion (Jones et al., 2010), so some approaches like Consequentialism could be used to perfect ethical development in the theoretical aspect. However, quite limited open literature to date has reported the role and importance of Consequentialism to Ethical thinking. The overall goal of this report was to resolve this problem by researching and discussing the implication of Consequentialism.

Research & Discussion

Outline of Consequentialism

The first time for the term “Consequentialism” put forward was by G.E.M Anscombe to specify the Consequentialist theory (1958) which has existed for a long time. The basis of Consequentialism is that acts’ ethical value depends on the value of their consequences (Sosa, 1993). This definition briefly and clearly defined Consequentialism as a consequences-oriented theory. It could be more precise and comprehensive if the “overall consequences” replaces “consequences”.

“Consequentialism is the view that morality is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences. Here the phrase “overall consequences” of an action means everything the action brings about, including the action itself.” (Haines, 2019)

There are two typical Consequentialism cases, Utilitarianism and Hedonism. Although these two ideas are similar approximately, utilitarianism believes pleasure should be the greatest pleasure together instead of focusing on maximum personal pleasure (Watson, 1876).

Understanding

The core idea of Consequentialism is the overall consequences. For theorists, they use “consequence” instead of “result” or “outcome”, “consequence” actually consists of the concomitant effects and results of acts, which means that this is not simply what happened. Imagine that there are 10 thousand dollars available to a poor man or a millionaire. Consequentialists may think that it is better to adopt the second choice because it could generate greater positive emotions and effects and it is obvious that the poor man needs the money even more, which means that the second choice is a better action. Consequentialism is rational, to determine the best strategy, people have to calculate the net profit of the total positive and negative consequences (Philosophy Terms, n.d.).

Disadvantage & Advantage

Consequentialism is against by many theorists. Firstly, the future is not definite, or it should be about the deviation between expected and actual results (Haines, 2019). Think about the poor and millionaire question. Should the money still be given to the poor if the millionaire generates more profits and welfare for the world? Secondly, Consequentialism may violate human rights. Here is a typical question. Suppose there are a doctor and six patients, and one patient’s drug could treat the other five patients with mild illness, which will lead to the death of that patient. Should the doctor do this? The answer is true for Consequentialism but false for morality (Foot, 1967). However, the advantage of Consequentialism is evident. It embodies a strong concept of realistic rationality (Freeman, 1994). Consequentialism could be applied widely because every decision could match measurable consequences (Haines, 2019). Its principle is clear and guides us to choose an action that could maximize good consequences when we meet a moral difficulty (BBC, n.d.).

The ideas of a well-known proponent

John Stuart Mill is a faithful advocate of this theory. Mill thinks that the theory of life is ‘pleasure’, which is intrinsically desirable, but it does differ from the thought of Bentham. Mill insisted that people should pay attention to the quality of pleasure, which means pursuing higher quality is more utilized than quantity. A typical statement of Mill is the pig satisfied theory, and then he went on to criticize Bentham’s theory as absurd.

“It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.” (Mill, 1879)

Moreover, some research about Mill’s theory illustrated that Mill presumed that more complete knowledge of moral duties results in greater happiness (Rising, 2002), maybe this is the reason why Mill would like to pursue “greater happiness”.

Consequentialism & Deontology

Consequentialism always contrasts with Deontology. Deontology is the study of duty. The representative of Deontology is Kant, whose central idea is that responsibility takes precedence over the result (Thomas, 2015). As Consequentialism thinks that the value of actions depends on the overall consequences, which is also the most apparent attribute of this approach, Deontology holds that some choices could not be judged by their effects no matter how positive the consequences are in morality – some choices are banned morally (Alexander and Moore, 2007). Therefore, returning to the patient-doctor question, Deontology would like to adopt the opposite choice, because killing violates moral rules. On the other hand, Deontology can lead to immorality in some special cases. Some scholars hope to combine the two theories as a reference. All of these attempts to combine deontology and consequentialism provide moral realists with a perfect (Thomas 2015, p.5). In summary, Deontology is the philosophical opposite of Consequentialism, which means it is a rules-oriented approach.

Role & Importance

Consequentialism is a kind of methodology to help people make decisions and execute actions morally. To form ethical or moral thinking, this kind of method does lots of importance to supply people with a train of thought. The theory of Consequentialism tends to do something generally morally.

“Ethics is the branch of philosophy concerned with how we should decide what is morally wrong and what is morally right.” (Jones et al., 2010)

Although sometimes consequential decisions are not moral for each individual, Consequentialism tries to execute reasonability. Otherwise, Consequentialism requires less serious knowledge, hence people could adopt this methodology widely. It is simpler than deontology, because for any action and activity, no matter whether there is a specific rule or not, it could be utilized. In the system of Consequentialism, the result could be quantified, so the mathematical evaluation could help to obtain the most moral decision. Thus, this provides people’s ethical thinking with a simple access mode (Hart, n.d.).

Conclusion

This report has given an account of the reasons for Consequentialism its role and importance to ethical thinking through the definition researching, pros and cons discussion, and typical ideas analyzing and contrasting with Deontology. Compared with the rule-oriented ethical theory, Consequentialism is consequences-oriented and could be widely used to maximize profits, although it may cause some special unethical cases. Consequentialism is significant to ethical thinking because it helps people to form a well-defined frame of ethical thinking. As a clear and comprehensible methodology, consequentialism could supply people with a kind of critical examining method to justify possible strategies and actions by consequences.

Reference

1. Alexander, L. and Moore, M. (2007) Deontological Ethics, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
2. Anscombe, G.E.M. (1958) ‘Modern Moral Philosophy, Philosophy, 33(124), 1-19, Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3749051.
3. Consequentialism (n.d.) BBC, available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml.
4. Consequentialism (n.d.) Philosophy Terms, available: https://philosophyterms.com/consequentialism/.
5. Foot, P. (1967) The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect, Oxford Review, 28-41.
6. Freeman, S. (1994) Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priority of Right, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 23(4), 313-349, available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265463.
7. Haines, W. (2019) consequentialism, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, University of Hong Kong, China.
8. Hart, G. (n.d.) Applying Utilitarianism: Are Insider Trading and the Bailout of GM Ethical, Utilitarianism and Consequentialism – The GM Bailout, available: https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/ethics-101/applying-utilitarianism-are-insider-trading-and-the-bailout-of-gm-ethical/.
9. Jones, A., McKim, A., and Reiss, M. eds. (2010) Ethics in the science and technology classroom: a new approach to teaching and learning, SENSE PUBLISHERS.
10. Mill, J.S. (1879) Utilitarianism, 7th ed., London: FRASER’S MAGAZINE.
11. Rising, J. (2002) Justice and Ethics, MIT, available: http://www.mit.edu/~jrising/resources/philo/webres/justice1.2.pdf.
12. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019) consequentialism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
13. Sosa, D. (1993) ‘Consequences of Consequentialism’, Mind, 102(405), 101-122, Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2254174.
14. Thomas, A.J. (2015) Deontology, Consequentialism and Moral Realism, Minerva, 1-24.
15. Watson, J. (1876) Hedonism and Utilitarianism, The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 10(3), 271-290, available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25665986.

Ethics is the study of morality, Ethics is the moral principles governing a person’s or agent’s actions. I would call myself a Utilitarian-Egoists ethicist because I believe in doing that act that produces the greatest good for the masses but however, in doing that act that produces the greatest good for the greatest number we must always put our self-first, although at times self-egoism may seem selfish, it is always fair and intrinsically good to be self-motivated. My internal reflection plays an important role in my personal decision-making process. When I do something against my own ethics and values, I would be leaving myself to bad feelings of guilt or shame or dishonor. If do something which meets my personal ethics and values, I would feel proud of myself and such accomplishments. This is what influences the creation of my ethical standards. My family, my culture, my internal reflection, and others around me are what drive and motivate me to write my theory of ethics. This paper will be based upon a theory summarized as Joel’s theory.

My intention of writing this paper is to draw from all the ethical theories in reference of those highlighted in class, especially the one listed below, and formulated Joel’s theory which can be used as a guide toward human behavior. Joel’s theory of ethics states that “a true human being will not only help himself but he will also help others whom are in need.” Natural law, Utilitarianism, Deontology, Virtue ethics, Ethical Egoism, and Situational ethics are the theories that were used to formulate my theory of Ethics called Joel’s theory. These are the theories that were used to formulate Joel’s theory of Ethics because they are simple and straightforward, furthermore, they contain materials and information that Joel’s theory stands for, although these theories contain flaws, Joel’s theory of ethics does not reflect those flaws and as such the formation of Joel’s theory of ethics will be thoroughly discussed. The aim of Joel’s theory is to show that if human beings are considerate and affectionate not only to himself but to his follow species, this world will be a better place not only for who is living in it now but also for preceding generations to come thus ensuring the continuation and integration of the marvelous human race.

My theory of Ethics; ‘a true human being help not only himself but he will also help others whom are in need.’ In other words, a true human being is not selfish but is instead considerate towards his fellow species.

What I like and dislike about a few theories namely Utilitarianism, is that it is simply it says do the act that produces the greatest good for the masses. What I dislike about this theory is that there can be proportionality; in order words there can be good or bad consequences, in terms of Ethical relativism; I like the fact that it says ‘there are no absolute laws binding us all. ‘Instead, these moral principles vary from society to society, hence the term ‘diversity thesis’. What I like about Deontology is that it just says in each case do the right act because the end never justifies the means. The end never justify the means, this is what I hate about Deontology because at times the end can justify the means. In terms of cyber ethics; what I like is that it says new ethical issues have developed due to technology/computers and this is clearly true. The point that I dislike is this where it says, “Technology have not introduced any new ethical issues”-traditionalist view of cyber ethics, to my knowledge this is not so, what about hacking, isn’t that an ethical issue?

From environmental and animal rights ethics, what I like is that these theories strive to preserve and embrace nature, especially in terms of egocentrism, where the ecosystem should remain un-touch by humans because of its intrinsic value. For animal rights ethics, I like the fact that this theory suggests that animals are living beings with the right to live freely. What I dislike about both theories is that they seek to make it look as if we as humans should not exploit nature, at times this need to be done for our own success. Additionally, what I like about Feminists ethics is that it seeks to create gender-neutral rather than gender-equal ethics thus generating non- sexist principles that can govern the action of males and females. What I am disgusted about this theory is that it tells us what we ought not to do but not what we should do. Ethical egoism, I like the fact that it says to strive for happiness and be the best you can be, but what degree of happiness should we strive for? For sports ethics, what I love is that there is a model which says we can do anything to gain an advantage over our opponent, whilst there is another model that says we should be considerate for our opponent. So in essence sports ethics gives us the opportunity to be selfish of considerate to our opponents.

My theory of ethics is somewhat dialectical. To demonstrate a classic example of the dialectal method of Ethics and its operative-ness Deontology could be the thesis where it says always love and help others because it is good in and of itself. The antithesis could be Utilitarianism where it says do that act that produces the greatest good for the masses. The synthesis, however, could be Situational Ethics which gets from deontology always love and from Utilitarianism, its gets do the most loving thing for the mass; for the most loving people. After summing up all of that Situational ethics would become the new thesis which always love and do the greatest good for the masses in each situation.

From Virtue ethics, Joel’s theory takes that Virtuous persons do virtuous acts. In other words, a true and good human being will do good things so this is directly in line with my theory since a true human being whom is a good person will do good things. This good thing according to Joel’s theory is giving assistance to others whom are in need. That person whom give assistance to another person who is in need is termed a ‘true and virtuous human being’. However, the flaw of Virtue ethics in terms of its approach to Joel’s theory is that Virtue ethics cannot correctly assess the occasional tragic actions of virtuous beings. In Joel’s theory, the Virtuous person who not only help himself but also help others in need may one day stray from helping a person whom is in need and this is what virtue ethics cannot assess.

Additionally from Natural Law Joel’s theory take away the line that the preservation and assistance, as well as the advancement of any life forms, must always take precedence and be embraced to the fullest. In Joel’s theory of Ethics; the helping of another human being at a particular time may make that person whom the assistance is given live or even more so that person life situation may improve. In terms of the dialectical method of natural law you could use Objectivity and Subjectivity and the synthesis could be Deontology, where if you take ethics seriously you have to look at it from an objective point of view that is if we are to seriously take ethics as a guide towards human behavior. If we look at ethics as subjective then we cannot use it as a guide toward human behavior. Deontology the synthesis would say it is intrinsic do the right thing let nature prevails. I love the line that say do good and avoid evil as it is directly related to my theory which states you must help others whom are in need and in doing so you will automatically do good and avoiding evil because in a sense one could have been plotting something negative against that person and so Natural Law is like the ‘right wing’ of my theory because this is exactly what my theory is about preserving life and warding off its obstacles when you help a person in need, you are actually eliminating that need and hence you will be warding off the obstacle of that need that may be hampering a person’s life. What I do not like about Natural Law is that this theory is too enclosed in terms of only pushing nature in your face. The course of nature needs a diversion at times if we as human beings are to be successful so this theory is too commanding and a person must have the right to choose what they believe are right for them. So Natural Law does not give us the opportunity of choice and I believe this is wrong because we should have that free will to do a particular act as it is us who will be blame or rewarded for the consequences. Natural Law is too absolute for my theory example it says; ‘Sex should only be used for procreation.’ I do not believe that, I believe sex was also made to be enjoyed by humans because we strive for happiness.

‘Help others and still help yourself. This statement emphasizes love just as situational ethics would. My theory of ethics gets from situational ethics that in any given situation; the moment decides what is right or wrong but in each case we must always love. Love unconditionally this is what my theory says, If we help others then this means more than likely we love them. My theory looks at the individual situations. The part of Situational Ethics that my theory does not stand for is Anti nominalism. The reason why this is so is because my theory indicates that there must be laws, if there are no laws then what will guide our behavior? what would be the basis of rewarding or punishing us?

From Utilitarianism, my theory takes that we must do the most loving thing that produces the greatest good on the masses so it is instrumental in nature and the end does justify the mean. As it regards to my theory if we help others in need then they will we be happy and we will also feel that sense of satisfaction and society will be better so in light of all this the greatest good will be produced for the greatest number. What I do not like about Utilitarianism is that we play god too much, how can we know what the greatest good will be on the masses? Can we see in the future? What I like about the theory is that the end can justify the mean and as such this is another pivotal theory in the formation of Joel’s theory of ethics.

From Deontology which is intrinsic in nature, my theory gets that we must always do the right thing, and always help others so this comes about in my theory where it says help not only yourself but also others in need. It is good in and of itself to help others it does not have to be instrumental like Utilitarianism. What me and my theory dislike about Deontology is that it says the end can never justify the means but however the END can justify the means and that is according to Joel’s theory of Ethics.

From Ethical Egoism my theory takes that we must love ourselves and we must be self-motivated in seeking our own happiness hence this reflects in Joel’s theory of ethics line which states; “ a true human being not only helps himself but he will also help others in need.” In this statement, it can clearly show that a human must love themselves but also love others in the process, very similar to what a man who says ‘beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, a man who have a master in Philosophy, my Ethics teacher the great Doctor Shades, what a man he is. In saying all that, it is natural for humans to be happy when they help others and hence indirectly this is what Joel’s theory of ethics gets from Ethical Egoism. What I dislike about Egoism is that it tries very much in making us selfish, me and my theory of ethics does not stand for that neither would my teacher the Great Dr. Schades. McKenzie’s theory of Ethics is universal hence it is not in one domain. The reason why my theory is in more than one domain is that initially Joel’s theory was formulated from different ethical theories that were in different domains example Deontology was in the domain of the act and Utilitarianism was in the domain of the consequence and so on. So Timmy’s theory of ethics is in the domain of the Consequence, the Act, and the motive. From Deontology my theory takes the domain of the Act, so in other words, we look at the act to determine the rightness or wrongness of such an action and in doing so the end can never justify the means. So what this says is that my theory can look at the act alone to determine its rightness or wrongness of action however it is to be noted that although you can look at a single domain to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action, at times each domain must not and cannot be looked at in a vacuum, that is they must be looked at in light of other domain. From Utilitarianism Joel’s theory of ethics falls within the domain of the Consequence so the end can justify the means. The motive however is what is important the motive that lies with my theory of ethics is that we should help others whether or not the motive comes about intrinsically or instrumentally. My theory of ethics seeks to ameliorate human suffering because it says we are supposed to help one another, be there for each other and in doing so there will be less human suffering. Joel’s theory of ethics also seeks to keep society from falling apart because beneath the theory it says love others which is why we should help them and if we love others then obviously we will do no harm to them. Joel’s theory is ethics in and of itself, it is prescriptive so it can be used as an antidote to curve human behavior towards a more positive one, it is also universal because it applies to all relevant situations since it says “a true human being not only help himself but he also helps others whom are in need”

In terms of my theory of ethics, it application to society is simply it says ‘A person who is considered to be a true human being not only helps himself but he also help others whom are in need. If this theory of ethics is practiced then most definitely the world will be a better place for all of us as human beings to live. My theory of ethics is practical because it is feasible and can be practiced by members of any society and as such if the theory is made practical then it must be made public so that members of any society can come to appreciate Joel’s theory of ethics because personally what I have grown to know is that persons will not appreciate a particular thing until they know it can benefit them where at that moment they will come to appreciate what that particular thing is all about.

In concluding Ethics have changed me living in this world as a moral being a whole lot. It have open up my eyes to diversity showing me that I do not only have to use the Bible as a guide towards my behavior but I can also use other theories to determine what is right or wrong in my way of life as well as in society. Ethics have made me a Critical thinker in that it have made me step back and look at the marvels of the universe in a different way and in doing a show I acknowledge how great the creator is. Special thanks to my teacher Dr. Schades whom have made me through teaching Ethics more than I thought I could be. I have learnt that Ethics should be used as a guide towards human behavior objectively and not subjectively but more so I have learnt about two major theories Deontology where the end can never justify the means because of its intrinsic nature. We must also do the act that is morally right in every way because this is what deontologists will used to judge us. On the other the theory that I love, Utilitarianism which is instrumental in nature says do that act that produces the greatest good for the masses hence this theory is in the domain of the consequence. More so ethics is Universal, practical and prescriptive. It is also noted that there are specific theories in Ethics that can be used as a guide towards human behavior, some of which we as Jamaicans live by without even knowing. I also learnt that one can used more than one theory from ethics to guide their behavior and as such this may keep society from falling apart and at the same time ameliorating human suffrage. I will from now onwards use ethics in my daily life, to be more specific the ‘Utilitarian-Egoists’ theory because I believe each and every one of us must be the best we can be without preventing someone else from being the best they can be. Since I respect every member of this universe, I will therefore live by this statement of Ethical relativism which states that “there are no moral absolutes, no moral right or wrongs. Instead, right and wrongs are simply based upon the social norms of a given society.”

Journalists being free to publish information is vital to a functioning, democratic society, and an informed population. However, a number of checks and balances are required to ensure that this right is not abused. As the Council of Europe’s guidelines on safeguarding privacy in the media state, “a journalist’s right to freedom of expression is not absolute. Journalists have rights and responsibilities” (Council of Europe, 2018). This means that the press must be ethical and responsible and that, contrary to the contention that a journalist’s right to publish is the greater good, the press cannot simply “regard ‘freedom’ as the ultimate panacea or touchstone for its mores and conduct.” (Great Britain. Leveson, L.J. 2012). In this essay, I will examine why some of these rights and responsibilities mean that publication of an article is not always for the greater good and how applying different ethical theories while looking at other external factors such as advertising and the law, can influence a journalist’s conclusion as to whether publishing an article is for the greater good.

A journalist’s own view of what the greater good is large rests with where they sit on the ethical spectrum. There are four ethical theories to consider – Utilitarianism, Deontology, the Golden Mean, and the Golden Rule. Utilitarianism, also known as ends-based thinking, “directs a choice in favour of the course of action that brings the most good to the most people” (Foreman, 2010, p126). Utilitarianism is a popular theory in journalism, as it allows journalists to be flexible and make decisions that have the best consequences and which the journalist believes bring about the greater good. In contrast, Deontology is rule-based thinking and believes that “neither the motive nor the consequences are of significance, only the nature of the act itself” (Frost, 2011, p18). Deontology is rarely found in journalism due to its rigid nature and inflexibility, which can prevent journalists from bringing crucial information to the public’s attention due to its source.

Those who abide by the Golden Rule would never do to others what they wouldn’t like done to themselves, for example, publishing an article depicting someone in a compromising position. The Golden Rule is generally unhelpful in deciding whether or not publishing is for the greater good. This is because it relies on a strong consensus of opinion, which is difficult to find in a diverse newsroom with journalists who have different ideological and political views. The last ethical theory, the Golden Mean, comes down to finding a middle ground between an excess and a deficiency. In a journalistic context, this theory could be used for redacting names from a sensitive article or blurring the faces of those who are a victim of crime.

The Golden Mean is particularly useful in assisting a journalist to decide whether publishing a story is in the greater good, in particularly sensitive situations such as terrorist attacks. Using the basis of avoiding excess or deficiency, when reporting on the 2019 London Bridge terror attack, Sky News chose to blur the faces of the perpetrator, the victims, and the anti-terror police. For this coverage, they won ‘Breaking News Story of the Year at the Drum Online Media Awards 2020. Accepting the award, Sky News said they made these decisions “having taken the responsible stance of not rushing anything to publication which could identify police or security officers” (The Drum, 2020). This demonstrates how a breaking news story chose to use the Golden Mean to ensure no graphic content was allowed into the public domain on their platforms, allowing the distressing story to be covered with sensitivity and, ultimately, for the public good.

An example of how the varying ethical theories can affect a journalist’s view on whether publishing is for the greater good is seen with the Afghan War documents leak – which in some respects is reminiscent of the earlier Pentagon Papers leak in 1971. This example shows how applying a different theory can change the outcome of the decision on whether or not to publish. In 2010, The Guardian published a piece including leaked documents detailing unreported incidents of civilian deaths and injuries in Afghanistan during the Afghanistan War. The Guardian chose to take a Utilitarian approach to the story by deciding to publish it, despite the fact the incriminating documents were obtained illegally via the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, and the documents were classified as secret. The choice to publish was determined to be in the greater good because it was beneficial to inform the public of this information about the actions of U.K. and U.S. troops. In the decision-making, there were also elements of the Golden Mean. This is demonstrated in the fact that the Guardian chose to redact any information that may lead to the identification of troops or undercover operatives.

If the Guardian’s editors had taken a Deontological approach, however, the documents would never have been published. This is because those following Deontology would never break the rules or the law, therefore would never publish illegally obtained or classified documents. If the editors of the Guardian were following the Golden Rule, they would have been unlikely to have come to a conclusion on the issue, as who decides whether you wouldn’t like this done to you so you wouldn’t do it to someone else? The varying views and beliefs in a newsroom mean that the Golden Rule is near impossible to achieve as you will inevitably struggle to get a strong consensus of opinion on an issue.

The decision by The Guardian to publish the Afghan War documents was ultimately one of Utilitarianism, but it highlights the complexities and dilemmas of the ethical theories when faced with a decision like this and also reveals how the ethical theories can sometimes overlap, as we saw elements of the Golden Mean blending with Utilitarianism. Explaining the Guardian’s decision to publish the confidential documents, Alan Rusbridger – who was Editor at the time of publication – offered a classic utilitarian approach, stating, “in the end, you weigh up what you believe to be public good against public harm, you try to minimize the harm by highlighting public material of most public interest” (Elliott, 2010).

The Guardian’s decision on the Afghan War documents also demonstrates the importance of a story that is in the public interest, so publication is justified despite the illegality of obtaining the documents. This is particularly important because, when deciding whether or not to publish a particular piece, the first place a journalist will often look is to the law and journalistic Codes of Conduct – even before looking at their own personal ethical views. Some countries such as North Korea, which is ranked bottom of the 2020 World Press Freedom Index, use the law to apply heavy censorship to their press, making the law unhelpful as a source of ethical guidance. In contrast, the U.K. system provides support to journalists facing difficult ethical decisions, as the legal framework applicable to journalists largely stems from independent journalistic bodies.

The largest of these is IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation), which sets out a Code of Conduct that journalists are expected to abide by. Within this, there are certain exceptions to the prohibited behaviors – this is the public interest defense. The public interest includes, but is not confined to, detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety, protecting the public from being misled by an action or statement by an individual, and protecting public health and safety, among other justifications (IPSO, 2019). The code can also affect and restrict what journalists see as the greater good, although the ambiguity of the public interest defense means that looking to ethical theories is inevitably still required. For example, if a journalist takes a utilitarian approach and publishes a story that is in the public interest but breaks laws, then the public interest defense covers them legally. As pointed out by the Leveson Inquiry “otherwise unethical practices may be made ethical simply by virtue of the fact that they are justified, in the circumstances, in the public interest” (Great Britain. Leveson, L.J. 2012). An example of this would include the covert filming tactics used to gather proof that Cambridge Analytica had exploited the data of individuals to bombard them with political messages and misinformation – highlighting to the public the misuse of their data also did more harm than good and emphasizing how the public interest defense and utilitarian ethics often go hand-in-hand.

However, if a journalist chooses to publish a story that is of interest to the public rather than in the public interest – for example, a celebrity gossip story – then it does not reach the threshold for the public interest defense in law. In 2020, former Panorama presenter Martin Bashir was accused by Diana, Princess of Wales’s brother, Earl Spencer, of using “yellow journalism” and “sheer dishonesty”, including falsifying documents, in order to secure an exclusive interview with the Princess in 1995 (English, R, and Kay, R, 2020). This is a prime example of journalists abusing the power placed in them by the public to deliver information. By using these dishonest tactics to gain a sensationalist interview, Bashir was trying to obtain a story that is of interest to the public, rather than in the public interest. Such stories are not published for the greater good of society, but for the greater good of the publication – which should not be high on a journalist’s ethical priority list. Therefore, the limit on what is defined as the public interest in law can act as a way for journalists to check whether what they’re doing is actually for the greater good – if it doesn’t meet the threshold for defense, then it’s probably not what they should be doing.

U.K. journalists are also protected by the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 10 guarantees the right to freedom of expression and allows journalists to protect their sources, while Article 8 gives a right to respect for one’s private and family life (Great Britain. Human Rights Act 1998). Article 10 gives journalists a right which assists them to publish stories – but this freedom of expression can be abused due to varying views on the greater good of publication and the wide freedom of Article 10 must therefore be limited by a journalist’s own ethical beliefs in the shape of the theories outlined above. However, Article 10 does clash with the ethical theory of Deontology, as it holds protecting your sources as “one of the basic conditions of press freedom” (Goodwin v the United Kingdom, 1996). This is in contrast to Deontology’s insistence on not holding anything back from the reader, including sources, and emphasizes why Deontology is scarcely used in journalism, due to its incompatibility with modern Human Rights.

Meanwhile, Article 8 places a responsibility on journalists to abide by this respect for one’s privacy and not go too far in their publication of stories that are of interest to the public, rather than in the public interest. This is a useful legal check and balance for a journalist to decide whether their ethical intuition is correct.

As well as sourcing sensationalist stories to produce readership, there are other external factors that also come into play when considering whether the journalist’s right to publish is the greater good. Advertising and political leanings are two of these factors. A media organization’s view on whether something is the greater good to publish can be heavily influenced by the power of advertising. If a negative story has emerged about one of a media organization’s most influential donors, for example, the media organization may choose to ignore the story and neglect to cover it, therefore feeling that the greater good in this situation is to keep the backing of the powerful donor, in order to keep the publication financially viable. The constraints of advertising, affecting what journalists perceive to be the greater good, was seen in 2015 when The Daily Telegraph’s former chief political commentator, Peter Oborne, resigned from the paper and revealed that the Telegraph was removing or failing to publish negative stories about one of their major advertisers, HSBC. After his exit, Oborne said that the paper was “committing a fraud on its readers” and had “been placing what it perceives to be the interest of a major international bank above its duty to bring the news to Telegraph readers” (Oborne, 2015). Clearly, the Telegraph felt that the greater good was to not publish these stories about HSBC, demonstrating how the power of advertising can skew a journalist’s ethical convictions.

Another external factor that can distort the view of the greater good is the political leaning of a media organization. Similar to advertising donors, media organizations may feel that the greater good in this situation is to avoid negative stories about whichever political party they have affiliations to. The different ideological views, varying ethics, and conflicting moral codes often found in a diverse newsroom can make deciding what the greater good actually is very difficult. These external factors can lead to abuse of the power given to journalists by the public, who expect them to deliver truthful, accurate news. Perhaps it is even arguable that it is in the greater good not to publish a story that is heavily influenced by political leanings, which distort the truth.

One final pressure on journalists, laid bare by the Leveson inquiry into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press, is the newsroom culture and how the ethics of the senior staff members and editorial team can filter down to and contaminate the ethics of more junior staff members.

A key focus of the Leveson Inquiry, held throughout 2011 and 2012, was the highly unethical practices of phone hacking and harassment at the now-defunct News of The World. The inquiry concluded that there was a broad culture at the newspaper that “regarded the imperative of getting information for stories as more important than respecting the rights of any individuals concerned or, indeed, compliance with the Editors’ Code or the law” (Great Britain. Leveson, L.J. 2012).

The cultural acceptance of illegal and unethical practices within the newsroom demonstrates how the ethics of journalists – particularly young, impressionable journalists – and their decisions on whether the publication is for the greater good can be heavily influenced by the ethics of those around them and the ‘peer pressure’ mentality in a newsroom, as well as once again illustrating the dangers of the commercial and competitive nature of the newspaper business placing an emphasis on selling copies as opposed to upholding the highest standards of professional ethics.

The current era of social media also presents new challenges for journalists to navigate, including where the greater good lies when confronted with fast-moving methods of news dissemination. Easily accessible, social media now presents an opportunity for anyone with a computer to call themselves a journalist and post whatever they want online on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, without adhering to the ethical codes of practice that bind professional journalists. This can undermine the credibility of professional journalists, who may then resort to unacceptable, unethical, and underhand ‘clickbait’ methods, or news obtained by unverified sources, to ensure the viability of their news organization due to the increasing commercial pressures which the freedom of social media information places on print newspapers as physical circulation of newspapers continues to decline. Journalists are also still grappling with how to apply traditional ethics, such as sources and privacy, to a social media era and can sometimes overstep the line in the methods they use to gather information on these platforms, such as sending friend requests to individuals on social networking sites and then using their posts to inform stories.

Overall, I believe that the journalist’s right to publish is the greater good is accurate in most instances, but there can be occasions where the trust placed in journalists by the public is abused. This abuse often comes when external influences, such as commercial pressures, advertising, and political affiliations, cause media organizations to alter their view of what the greater good is, based on what will serve their interests and sell newspapers accordingly. To promote strong, independent journalism, we, as journalists, need to ensure that our personal interests and the personal interests of our media organization don’t stop us from delivering accurate, important news to the wider public. The journalist’s right to publish is undoubtedly the greater good when the content being published is causing the most good to the largest number of people.

The main difference between deontology and consequentialism is that deontology focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves. Whereas, consequentialism focuses on the consequences of the action.

Deontology and consequentialism are two contrasting, normative ethical theories that determine the morality of an action. Of these, consequentialism determines the rightness or wrongness of actions by examining its consequences. Meanwhile, deontology determines the rightness or wrongness of actions by examining action themselves, without focusing on their consequences.

Deontology is a normative ethical theory that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, instead of focusing its consequences or any other considerations. We sometimes describe this theory as duty-, rule-, or obligation-based. In fact, the name ‘deontological’ originated from the Greek word deon, which refers to duty. Thus, this theory simply requires people to follow rules and do their duty. In short, deontology is a non-consequential theory since the goodness or badness of an action in this theory does not depend on its consequences.

Deontology is associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant, who believed that ethical actions follow universal moral laws. Universal moral laws here refers to rules such as don’t kill, don’t lie, don’t steal. According to this theory, people have to do the right action, even if it brings bad results. For example, imagine you have received a gift from a friend, but you hate this gift. Your friend wants to know whether you like the gift. You believe that lying is a bad action, no matter the results; therefore, you would tell that you hate it even if you are hurting your friend. Here, you are demonstrating a deontological position as you are disregarding the possible consequences of your actions when determining what is right and what is wrong.

Consequentialism refers to a set of normative ethical theories that states an action should be judged right or wrong on the basis of its consequences. For example, telling a lie is a right action if it can have good consequences like saving someone’s life. Thus, according to consequentialism, a morally right act is an act that will produce good results. Furthermore, the more good results an act produces, the better or more right that act will be.

There are different forms of consequentialism; utilitarianism and hedonism are two such main forms. In utilitarianism, consequences of an action are determined by a ‘greatest good for the greatest number’. Hedonism, in contrast, states something is good if its results produce pleasure or avoid pain. Furthermore, consequentialism is often contrasted with deontology as well as virtue ethics.

Deontology is an ethical theory that states it is possible to determine the rightness or wrongness of actions by examining actions themselves, without focusing on their consequences whereas consequentialism is an ethical theory that states it is possible to determine the rightness or wrongness of actions by examining its consequences.

More importantly, deontology doesn’t focus on the consequences of action, whereas consequentialism mainly focuses on the consequences.

Deontology and consequentialism are two contrasting normative ethical theories that determine the morality of an action. The main difference between deontology and consequentialism is that deontology focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, whereas consequentialism focuses on the consequences of the action.

Introduction

Utilitarianism and deontology are two prominent ethical theories that guide decision-making in various contexts. Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing good outcomes, while deontology emphasizes moral rules and duties. This essay argues that deontology provides a stronger platform for critical decision-making in society due to its emphasis on moral principles and human dignity.

Utilitarianism: Pursuit of Good Outcomes

Utilitarianism, founded by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, prioritizes the maximization of good outcomes. The principle of utility dictates that actions should be judged based on their ability to produce happiness and promote the greater good. For example, in a hospital scenario, utilitarianism might advocate for allocating medical resources to patients who have the highest chance of survival, even if it means sacrificing the needs of others.

Deontology: Duty-Based Ethics

Deontology, rooted in the works of Immanuel Kant, emphasizes moral rules and duties. According to Kant’s concept of duty and the categorical imperative, individuals have inherent moral obligations that must be upheld regardless of the consequences. Deontological principles focus on universal laws and human dignity, suggesting that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, irrespective of their outcomes. In the hospital scenario, a deontologist might prioritize treating each patient with equal respect and dignity, regardless of their chances of survival.

Comparison of Utilitarianism and Deontology

Utilitarianism and deontology differ in their approach to ethical decision-making. Utilitarianism prioritizes outcomes, often leading to the sacrifice of individual rights and moral principles for the greater good. In contrast, deontology emphasizes moral duties and principles, placing a strong emphasis on human dignity and universal laws. While utilitarianism offers flexibility and a focus on consequences, deontology provides a more structured ethical framework based on moral absolutes.

Critique of Utilitarianism and Defense of Deontology

Critics of utilitarianism argue that it can justify unethical actions, such as sacrificing the rights of minorities for the greater happiness of the majority. On the other hand, deontology’s focus on moral principles and human dignity ensures that ethical decisions are grounded in universal laws and respect for individuals. Deontology’s reliability and practicality stem from its unwavering commitment to moral duties, which guide decision-making in a consistent and principled manner.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while both utilitarianism and deontology offer valuable insights into ethical decision-making, deontology provides a stronger platform for navigating moral complexities in society. By prioritizing moral principles, human dignity, and universal laws, deontology ensures that ethical decisions are guided by unwavering moral duties rather than situational outcomes. As society grapples with ethical dilemmas, deontology offers a reliable and principled framework for making critical decisions that uphold the fundamental values of morality and human dignity.

There are many ethical issues that are currently occurring. One topic that is talked about currently is the idea of genetic engineering in people. While genetic engineering can provide benefits to people with genetic illness, it is not ethically accepted under many forms of ethical traditions. Because genetic engineering only benefits a select group of people, it is often times not regarded as ethical in many situations. However, if genetic engineering can be adjusted and reworked to fit the general public, more people would begin to accept it and it could become considered ethical.

The biggest problem with genetic engineering is that is goes against many ethical principles. The responsibility to future generations is important because it respects the rights of those coming into life later on. The respect for autonomy and privacy is important to an individual’s genetic data which is considered personal data. Therefore, such identifiable data have to be protected from access by unauthorized people as well as from possible misuse. As a general principle, only the person tested has the right to decide, whether she or he wants to know or not to know about her or his genetic makeup, whether someone else may get access to this information and for what purposes genetic data are to be processed and used. With regard to genetics, autonomy as a fundamental feature of the human species leads to the right to self-determination, which obtains its value as an ethical principle from its role in living a good life according to one’s own beliefs. A fetus does not have this ability, meaning that it would be considered unethical to engineer it to suit other peoples wishes and desires.

Further problems arise with regard to individuals who cannot give consent to be genetically tested. A lot of legal instruments exist to protect the welfare of these individuals with legal representatives being one of them. However, all these instruments cannot protect the unborn child from being genetically tested in a comprehensive way, taking into account that the unborn child has a different moral and legal status in different countries. There is a lively controversy about the right of the child, especially the unborn child, to have its future right not to know, its right to an open future and its right to privacy preserved.

Utilitarianism principles would go against the ideas behind genetic modification because utilitarianism says to “maximize happiness for the largest number of people.” Genetic modification for medical purposes does not provide happiness for a large amount of people, but only a select few who have genetic diseases that can be fixed by modifying their genes. The well-being of the community is always taken into consideration when utilitarianism is a practiced ethical style. Jeremy Bentham founded this theory and established the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” Genetic engineering would not be accepted in any form because there is no way to modify the method in order to benefit a lot of people for the greater good of society. Because there is no way to make this work for a large number of people, genetic modification would go against utilitarianism principles. However, some people that may benefit from genetic testing may not agree with utilitarianism principles of benefiting the many because with that principle they would lose out on things that could increase their quality of life. The only way to allow all of society to benefit would be to allow genetic engineering for non- medical purposes and this could lead to scientific problems. Bentham also formulated the hedonistic calculus which is a system to develop the amount of pleasure that different activities cause. The extent variable as well as purity and fecundity are not fulfilled by genetic engineering.

However, based on the utilitarianism rules and set of ethics, if genetic engineering can be adjusted to work and help the many, it may become considered ethical. This is a problem because peoples beliefs should stick the same no matter who something benefits. Just because it may benefit more people, it does not mean that it should automatically become ethical. This would bring up a point that people who follow the utilitarianism style of ethics would have to decide if the time came. If the time came where genetic engineering was benefiting many people, would utilitarianism followers decide to continue following their original methods, or would they hold strong to the belief that genetic engineering is wrong or unethical?

Genetic modification weakens differences between humans. The goal of enhancing individuals and the human species by engineering the genes related to some characteristics and traits is not to be confused with the barbarous projects of eugenics that planned the simple elimination of human beings considered as ‘imperfect’ on an ideological basis. It impinges upon the principle of respect for human dignity in several ways. It weakens the idea that the differences among human beings, regardless of the measure of their endowment, are exactly what the recognition of their equality presupposes and therefore protects. It introduces the risk of new forms of discrimination for those who cannot afford such enhancement or simply do not want to resort to it. This information about genetic modification proves that it would not be accepted under the ideas behind utilitarianism. Since the human population would be scientifically changing, it would not be in the greater good as all populations would be the same.

Modern ethical thoughts suggest that Germline modification should be banned until it is proven safe. Gene modification has been considered to be efficacious against some genetic diseases due to its impact on the entire body of the offspring. However, there has emerged a global consensus that such gene modifications should be forbidden owing to safety concerns, unprecedented informed consent, challenges to human dignity, and the potential for permanent negative impact on future generations, including its abuse of adjusting traits for non-medical reasons. Human germline gene modification is largely forbidden by law or guidelines even in countries that are permissive to human embryonic stem cell research.

In addition to ethical issues, Human Germline Modification violates multiple international laws. Such as the United Nations Education Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights indicates in article 24 that “germline inventions” could be “contrary to human dignity.” and The 2001 European Union Directive on clinical trials “No gene therapy trials may be carried out which result in modifications to the subjects germline genetic identity.”

Genetic Modifications can’t be reversed meaning that we are talking about inheritable changes in the human genome that could be passed on potentially forever—we know of no proven safe way to reverse genetic modifications in people. Biodiversity, an examination of the genetic diversity argument (GDA) and the possible models under which the technologies would be distributed reveals that there is not strongly persuasive evidence regarding the effects on genetic diversity of the reproductive technologies on human populations. The only available method to produce the required evidence is through a very complex form of human experimentation. The type of human experiment that would produce the evidence is incompatible with present ethical codes of conduct. Therefore, any implementation of these technologies on human populations should be banned. For example, an epidemic could develop and wipe out a specific portion of the human population. If all humans had blue eyes and an epidemic wiped-out blue-eyed people, the human species would go extinct. But if people had brown eyes and blue eyes a strong remainder of the population would survive. This would not be accepted because it is harming a majority of the people.

Deontological ethics is a theory developed by Immanuel Kant. Deontology is a theory where universal morals are followed, and actions are judged by their results. A set of rules is followed. The discussion on genetic engineering can be weighed either way as there are both benefits and negative effects. Often this method results in people finding the issue “unacceptable.” (Deontology) As discussed above, the non-reversal able impacts of genetic engineering would be non-reversable. Under deontology, genetic engineering would not be accepted following the code of ethics. It would be viewed as a form of lying and cheating because it is changing the genetic makeup of a person. Kant believes that human emotions should not play a role in deciding what action to take, therefore making the decision of correcting human genetic illness based on obligation. No conditions can be tied to the decision maker and all decisions must be based on the population and not individuals. (Seven Pillars)

Kant ethics would also argue that genetic engineering is against ethical theories because end of life is against ethical rights. If an embryo is genetically modified or is a means to an end, it would violate Kant’s theory of ethics. If the embryo was not tampered with it could have become a life, therefore tampering with genetic engineering is morally wrong. While genetic engineering could be beneficial even though it poses risks, Kant ethics does not consider each side of the argument. (KANTIAN ethics)

Overall, ethical theories have different concepts that can determine whether or not different controversial topics are ethical or not. Ethical types differ and utilitarianism focuses on maximizing happiness for the largest number of people while keeping the outcome in mind, and deontology only focuses on obligation and the final results do not play a role in the decision making. Genetic engineering, under most types of ethics is not acceptable.

Utilitarianism means that you do anything to get the most amount of happiness. No matter what it takes in utilitarianism the bigger factor and, really the only factor that matters is being happy and receiving pleasure. If it means killing someone because it brings pleasure and for the greater good to you and others than that is okay. Utilitarianism also uses humans as always having to do good for others. You will always have to volunteer o always try to help in any way possible to help everyone and any problem that comes up. Basically, you have no break because you’re always busy doing things to benefit others and not just yourself. You also must distinguish what’s more important and do whatever is more important instead of what’s least important in utilitarianism. This theory uses people to make bad things go away and good things stay for example pleasures and happiness. People must get rid of all the bad no matter what it takes so it uses people as means to an end. The theory says that you always should choose what brings you the most pleasure in everything that you do in life. If you have to choose between the food you have to choose whatever everyone likes not just you so you never get to choose for yourself, you always have to think of what other people may like or want. “utilitarian think that what makes a morality be true or justifiable is its positive contribution to human” Nathanson, Stephen. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Overall this theory is always looking for the best thing for others and not just yourself whatever you think is right needs to benefit other people. You always need to think about other people and not just yourself.

Down syndrome is a birth defect that happens more and more often. “Down syndrome occurs when an individual has a full or partial extra copy of chromosome 21.” National Down Syndrome Society. Some countries think it is okay to kill all these innocent babies just because of their birth defects. Utilitarians would do it because it is for the greater good. The good will be that no one will have to take care of the kids and the parents won’t have to live sadly because their baby came out with down syndrome. Also, we won’t have to spend money on special classes they need for example therapy and other things like that. Medication is a big one as well because sometimes they do need medication so that they can be still and not be moving around as much. For utilitarian all those reasons are more than enough to kill all the babies since it won’t only be for the greater good of the parents but also for everyone that has to do things with these kids.

If utilitarians do kill all the kids that have down syndrome it would cause many falls not only good things. For example, if we have no down syndrome babies a lot of jobs would be lost. All the doctors and nurses that give therapy and all the medicine workers would be jobless so in that case it is not for the greater good and it doesn’t benefit the most. Not only will a lot of jobs be lost but companies and other franchises would suffer from losing employees too. “More than half of adults with Down syndrome are employed, with many finding jobs in restaurants, grocery stores, and office settings.” Lawler, Moira What is Down Syndrome. This alone shows that people with down syndrome can be help to society and if utilitarians do get rid of them we would not be benefiting everyone.

Deontology is basically helping not for the good of anyone but just because it is good. “Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and do their duty.” Ethics Unwrapped. Deontology has rules that you must follow and those rules are what you go by to know what’s right or wrong. For example, telling anyone a lie isn’t okay so it is wrong and you shouldn’t do it. Now if you don’t tell a lie and not do anything wrong then you are doing what’s right and doing what you are supposed to do as far as Kant’s theory. Deontology isn’t happiness it is just doing what’s right because it is right. No matter what it is if its right then it is good and you should do it. If you want the good end, then you must do things to get it and that is doing right. For example, going to heaven if you want to go then you must live a certain way so that you can make it possible.

In deontology, life is very precious and you should never use human life as a means to an end no matter the situation. Human life is sacred and shouldn’t be used as a tool or a way to get something better. If you are going to use a person to get to a better place or to get something good out of something with the person’s consent then it is okay and it is right. This only applies if the person knows what’s going on and they know that someone is using them to get the greater good. The reason it is okay to use someone with them knowing is because the person being used knows that they are being used to achieve a greater good. But other than that life shouldn’t be a way to get the greater good. Deontology shows that using someone is like using them not as a human but just using them as a way to get somewhere you are basically taking their humanity away.

Deontology would not be okay with all kids born with down syndrome being killed. They wouldn’t be okay with it because the baby is a life and you shouldn’t use someone for the greater good if they don’t know. A baby wouldn’t know what’s good or wrong so it is not okay to do this. With this theory being applied to killing all babies born with down syndrome there is lot of positives. This theory wouldn’t allow this to happen and that is good itself. A baby has no way of knowing what’s going on and this theory doesn’t let you do something like that which is a good thing. “universal moral laws, such as “Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat.” Ethics Unwrapped. This also includes killing. So overall this theory is good when it comes down to killing babies with down syndrome.

The bad things about using this theory with killing down syndrome babies are that if they cannot kill them or they can’t kill themselves then they will still be in society and it will cause society a lot more in medicine and many other things. Also, families will be devastated because of them suffering every day and not being able to do anything about it. They are not allowed to kill them so they are going to suffer and at the end, that alone isn’t right.

Deontology is better when it comes to this issue they believe that is wrong to kill innocent human beings. And that is why I argue that it is better than utilitarianism where it is okay to kill for the greater good. They use human beings as a tool to save money or to live better without any down syndrome people but they are human beings and they do have feelings just like anyone else. “People with Down syndrome have feelings just like anyone else. They experience the full range of emotions.” Triangle Down Syndrome Network. With deontology, they are against any life-ending even suicide they do not believe in that and they do believe that every life is good and every life is sacred. As for utilitarianism, it is okay for you to kill yourself and do anything if it is for the greater good. Killing all down syndrome babies or adults doesn’t bring as many positives as it does negatives. You will have many people suffering from depression and many broken families. They shouldn’t be treated as a means to an end anybody with down syndrome didn’t choose to have it so they have no fault. If they have no fault, then they shouldn’t be punished or killed they aren’t doing anything wrong and deontology says that as long as you do good then you are good.

Deontology argues that as long as the person agrees that they are being used for the greater good then it is okay then it is fine. I think that since you can euthanize yourself in countries such as Belgium doesn’t mean you should. “legalizing both euthanasia and PAS for ‘competent’ adults and emancipated minors suffering from ‘constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated.” Procon. If they have disabilities such as down syndrome they don’t know what they are doing and since its okay to kill in deontology if it’s the right reason, here being to save resources I think the doctor or whoever is helping kill the people should be trained to try and stop them. They don’t have the best decision-making skills when it comes to complex decisions and of course, this isn’t an easy decision. “For any big or complex decisions where it has been established a person lacks capacity, a formal best interests approach must be taken.” A Registered Charity Down Syndrome Association. Doctors need to be trained to take a different approach when it comes to dealing with down syndrome people trying to euthanize themselves because they need the extra help to think. Deontology would argue that a doctor is doing right by helping and saving a life. Not helping is wrong because the person has a disability.

Killing people with down syndrome is discrimination just because they have an extra chromosome doesn’t give the right to do so. In some countries, they eliminate all down syndrome babies just to save resources all because they have down syndrome. “babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in Iceland are aborted.” Patricia Heaton America. They aren’t different in many ways they all have human features and are human no one should try and kill them for no reason that is not socially okay it is discriminating. A group of people that has a disability is still part of society. Families go through a lot of depression with losing a loved one and we shouldn’t allow them to get rid of all of them. One of the main reasons they want to get rid of people with down syndrome is because they need a lot of money and resources. “According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the cost of raising your typical kid to the age of 18 is around $240,000. people affected by disabilities will spend around $10,000 annually in out-of-pocket costs just for medical services.” Patrick A Coleman Fatherly. Although it may seem like a lot we are basically attacking one group of people and that is never okay in any society.

Introduction

In the field of nursing ethics, two prominent ethical theories often come into play: deontology and utilitarianism. While both aim to guide ethical decision-making, they approach moral dilemmas from different perspectives. This essay will compare and contrast deontology and utilitarianism in the context of nursing ethics, highlighting their key principles and applications.

Deontology in Nursing

Deontology is an ethical theory that emphasizes duty, rules, and principles in determining the morality of actions. In nursing, deontological principles often include respecting patient autonomy, maintaining confidentiality, and adhering to professional codes of conduct. For example, a nurse who follows deontological principles would prioritize protecting patient privacy even if it means withholding information from family members without the patient’s consent. Deontology focuses on the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of actions, regardless of their consequences.

Utilitarianism in Nursing

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, is an ethical theory that prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In nursing, utilitarian principles may involve making decisions based on the potential outcomes and consequences of actions. For instance, a nurse practicing utilitarianism might prioritize the well-being of the majority of patients over the preferences of an individual patient if it leads to overall greater happiness or health outcomes. Utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their consequences, aiming to maximize utility or benefit while minimizing harm.

Comparison of Principles

One key difference between deontology and utilitarianism lies in their underlying principles. Deontology focuses on the inherent moral duties and obligations of individuals, regardless of the outcomes of their actions. In contrast, utilitarianism prioritizes the consequences of actions and seeks to maximize overall happiness or well-being. While deontology emphasizes principles such as honesty, integrity, and respect for autonomy, utilitarianism prioritizes considerations of utility, efficiency, and the greater good.

Application in Nursing Dilemmas

In nursing practice, both deontology and utilitarianism can offer guidance in ethical decision-making, but they may lead to different conclusions in certain situations. For example, consider a scenario where a nurse must decide whether to disclose a medical error to a patient. A deontological approach would prioritize honesty and transparency, advocating for full disclosure regardless of the potential negative consequences for the patient’s emotional well-being. In contrast, a utilitarian approach might weigh the potential harm caused by the disclosure against the potential benefits, such as maintaining trust in the healthcare system or preventing future errors.

Ethical Challenges and Considerations

While deontology and utilitarianism provide valuable frameworks for ethical decision-making in nursing, they are not without their challenges and limitations. Deontological principles may sometimes conflict with one another, leading to ethical dilemmas where no clear solution exists. Similarly, utilitarian calculations of utility can be subjective and difficult to quantify, particularly when weighing the interests of different stakeholders. Nurses must navigate these complexities while upholding ethical standards and delivering patient-centered care.

Conclusion

In conclusion, deontology and utilitarianism offer distinct approaches to ethical decision-making in nursing, each with its own set of principles and considerations. While deontology emphasizes moral duties and obligations, utilitarianism prioritizes the consequences of actions and the maximization of overall utility. Both theories have relevance in nursing practice and can inform ethical reasoning in complex situations. By understanding the principles of deontology and utilitarianism, nurses can navigate ethical dilemmas with integrity, compassion, and professionalism, ultimately promoting the well-being of their patients and communities.