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.
Introduction
Rhetoric debates on whether something is morally right or wrong provide many answers to a single question, and each individual is free to decide on what basis they judge others and their actions. Philosophical theories that explain each side of the topic vary greatly in their definitions of the basis for good and evil. In this essay, different ethical views, including deontological and utilitarian, will be reviewed.
Utilitarianism vs. Deontology
The philosophy of utilitarianism strives to be adapting in its judgments. It focuses more on the relative rather than an absolute definition of good and evil. Everett and Kahane describe utilitarianism as a principle to “act in a way that impartially maximizes aggregate well-being” (1). According to this theory, there is no ultimate solution that fits all cases. Followers of utilitarianism thus claim that an action is morally right when it increases the happiness of the involved parties and minimizes the harm (Everett and Kahane 3). It is based on the theory of consequentialism, which ushers people to pursue actions with the best possible consequences according to each given situation (Everett and Kahane 5). Utilitarians can perceive one event as both right and wrong, depending on the outcomes.
In turn, the decisions of deontologists are based on intrinsic duties that every person has. Their philosophical theory does not focus on a situation but on intentions and the absolute negation of actions that may cause regret (Goldstein-Greenwood et al. 2). They take into account feelings, perceptions, and assumptions that it is a person’s obligation to operate on the basis of the idealistic good. Unlike utilitarians, who may justify their actions and have a clearer conscience, deontologists will always strive for perfection or suffer from guilt.
These two philosophies are often juxtaposed in their views on morals, as utilitarians rarely follow absolutist rules, while deontologists do not consider circumstances as an influencing factor as relativists do. Kant’s deontology is a perfect example of moral absolutism since it takes into consideration values independent of an individual’s personal preferences (Alvaro 33). At the same time, moral relativism allows situations where an action that would be otherwise perceived by some as evil is to be done in the name of maximizing overall happiness. For example, consequentialists use personal judgment and common sense when making such decisions as in the trolley dilemma. Objections against moral relativism often stem from the feelings of being lost in decision-making processes, evaluations, and sacrifices that detrimental to others (Alvaro 33). Absolutists, such as Christians, may hardly accept such ideas as a sacrifice of one for the safety of others, yet their feelings of guilt may drive them through challenging decision-making processes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, each action or decision is either right or wrong in accordance with an individual’s personal views on morality. Utilitarianism and deontology present contrasted opinions on what to consider morally right, leading to different decisions in life. Utilitarianists may be regarded as lacking remorse towards outcomes for some of the involved individuals. Deontology is stricter in terms of the judgment of decisions, as it requires one to have a strong moral compass. Followers of this theory do not analyze the consequences but operate on the existing imperatives. It has more to do with one’s affective rather than cognitive abilities. Despite outcomes, each action will always be judged as either right or wrong by moral absolutists or will depend on the situation in accordance with moral relativism.
Works Cited
Alvaro, Carlo. “The Incoherence of Moral Relativism.” Cultura, vol. 17, no. 1, 2020, pp. 19-38.
Everett, Jim A., and Guy Kahane. “Switching Tracks? Towards a Multidimensional Model of Utilitarian Psychology.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 24, no. 2, 2020, pp. 124-134.
Goldstein-Greenwood, J., et al. “(How) Do You Regret Killing One to Save Five? Affective and Cognitive Regret Differ After Utilitarian and Deontological Decisions.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 46, no. 9, 2020, pp. 1303-1317.
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.