Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Utilitarianism and deontology are two of the main ethical systems known and used today. The former suggests that the moral value of actions is determined by their consequences. In other words, an act that as a result maximizes benefits for the majority can be deemed ethical even though it harms certain individuals. At the same time, deontology proposes that an action is right only when it is performed consistently with ethical principles and codes regardless of whether its consequences are favorable or unfavorable. It is valid to say that Frederick Douglass’s perspective on the moral value of individuals and their duties is in line with the deontological rules of ethics. The author of the autobiography Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass was convinced that one has a moral responsibility to treat others not just as a means for attaining certain goals, either economic or religious, but as ends in themselves. I tend to agree with Douglass’s ideas and, in the present paper, I will aim to demonstrate why they must be considered valid.
The present-day world provides a plethora of examples of when individuals are treated as means and when duties are performed merely as instruments. The number of such examples is especially large in the business and economic spheres. For instance, a corporation may strive to generate greater profits by reducing labor costs and increasing daily work hours. In this situation, the management does not view workers as individuals and human beings but merely as tools by utilizing which it is possible to gain more revenues.
The profits that are generated through the use of employees as instruments maximize goods (wealth and happiness) only for a small group of people: managers, leaders, and other parties in the position of power. Besides, the well-being of workers is not considered in this situation. They may not only be deprived of a chance to access the economic benefits produced through their labor but also suffer serious inconveniences during the work process. Such a treatment of individuals cannot be considered ethical and just even from the utilitarian perspective since it does not maximize goods for the majority. However, it was regarded as a norm for a significant period in the United States since law and accepted social norms sanctioned slavery. During the times when slavery was legal, the value of every person was more than ever determined not only by their social-economic status but by their racial background as well. African Americans and some other ethnic minority groups were deprived of basic human rights. To respect the rights of those individuals and provide them with freedom was, in fact, against the law.
In the past, the idea that people of different races and ethnicities could have similar intrinsic qualities was inconceivable for some. Nowadays, we know that every person, regardless of their background, can attain similar degrees of success and benefit other people and society providing he or she is given a chance to thrive, develop skills, learn, and pursue various personal goals. It is possible to say that the respect towards those intrinsic potentials and rights of individuals was imperative for Douglass. To mistreat others and use them to satisfy personal goals while being aware that everyone has the same interests and needs for respect, thus, means to act immorally.
Readers can find many examples in Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass of how its author treated others with the utmost respect to their intrinsic values and approached them and himself as ends in themselves. A good one is when Douglass was mistreated by his mistress but did not become hateful towards her. Douglass wrote that she was “a kind and tender-hearted woman” by her very nature and, at first, she started to treat him “as she supposed one human being ought to treat another” (35). However, when the mistress commenced performing the responsibilities of a slaveholder, her attitude had changed drastically. She began to believe that to treat a slave “as a human being was not only wrong, but dangerously so” (Douglass 35). It is valid to say that when one becomes mistreated by another, despise towards the latter is often seen as a normal reaction, and hatred frequently becomes an only response to endured violence. However, this was not the case with Douglass since he not only felt sorry for the mistress but also understood that the change in her behavior was due to external forces.
When the previously pious and warm-hearted woman succumbed to external pressures and began to treat others as instruments, she seemed to lose her moral qualities. Douglass wrote that “slavery proved as injurious to her” as it was to him and that, under the influence of slavery and law, “the tender heart became stone, and the lamblike disposition gave way to one of tiger-like fierceness” (35). Douglass’s reflection of the mistress’s change indicates that it was the law and her greater engagement in the regular activities of slaveholders that made her behave unethically. However, he implied that even though she commenced doing wrong, she remained the same tender-hearted woman with “heavenly qualities” (Douglass 35). In other words, her intrinsic moral values did not alter and, therefore, Douglass was not able to mistreat the mistress back or show even the slightest hint of dislike towards her.
Based on the case of Douglass’s mistress, it is valid to say that it may be demoralizing to blindly comply with a law that requires individuals to treat others as instruments. Thus, to preserve personal integrity and own dignity, it is pivotal to disobey such regulations and the very notion that some people are intrinsically better than others. It is valid to say that Douglass indeed went against these laws and stereotypical perspectives on race held by many of his contemporaries since he was in the upfront of the abolitionist movement and educated his fellow slaves about it. Besides, by treating his mistress kindly even though she constantly mistreated him, Douglass adhered to his moral duty, which seemed to be based on the Christian principles of equality and brotherhood to a substantial degree. In Douglass’s view, every person, whether they are a slave or a master, has the same intrinsic qualities but they seem to manifest to a varying degree depending on the external circumstances. Such a perspective emphasizes the necessity to treat everyone well since it is the only way to preserve one’s dignity and elevate the moral status of all others.
In conclusion, it is appropriate to note that a clear answer to the matters of moral and instrumental values of human beings. There are situations in which it would be justifiable to use certain individuals, put them at risk, and sacrifice their well-being to minimize harm to the majority or maximize benefits for the community. However, the cases of abuse during slavery do not belong to this category. There is no justification for mistreating people who have the same rights and needs as everyone else and, as the example of Douglass’s mistress indicates, by treating others wrongfully, a person does a lot of harm to themselves.
Work Cited
Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave: Written by Himself, Critical Edition. Yale University Press, 2016.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.