Ethics - Grade: 70% PDF

Preview

Summary

Using one case study, compare the strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism and Deontology...

Description

Using one case study, compare the strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism and Deontology

Utilitarianism focuses on the greater good and holds importance in maximising happiness by assessing the actions involved in different situations. Deontology, on the other hand, focuses on the motive behind every action rather than its consequences. The case study (see appendix) mainly challenged utilitarianism but has demonstrated a few strengths. For example, it showed the emphasis on the greater good which was demonstrated by Luttrell (Sandel, 2010) who attempted to maximise happiness by deciding that it was not right to kill an innocent soul. By taking this decision it is also then morally correct. This is a strength because of the fact that it reflects how humans tend to behave. This rational way of thinking is also a strength in Deontology due to the fact that the soldier established the humanity and therefore respected the farmers innocence when letting them free (Tsagdis, G, 2019). Similarly, another strength of utilitarianism is the fact that its theory is simple and universally applicable. This is because when Luttrell decided to not kill the farmers it showed how the decision making was straightforward in the sense that they simply were unarmed so there is no point in killing them. Also, this theory can be applied to different situations without any exceptions because humans naturally think of the consequences in any given problems. However, it can be argued that with the dilemma comes a lot of uncertainty in outcomes. In the case study we saw that there was a potential risk that the farmers may inform the Taliban of the US soldiers and this causes a lot of confusion of what the consequences would be. In this way, utilitarianism is challenged as it is difficult to judge all lives equally. On the other, Deontology offers a lot of certainty with their idea of absolutism (BBC, 2019). The way that Utilitarians cannot predict the outcomes of any given situations, causing a lack in certainty, Deontologists can overcome these issues because as mentioned before, they only focus on the intentions of an action which is doing things for the right reasons. Therefore, they have simple, fixed rules that allow people to follow and predict what the outcome is. In relation to the case study, Luttrell decided to not kill the farmers because they were unarmed and because it was the right action to take without thinking of the consequences. Nevertheless, there can be uncertainty in the deontological theory to an extent due to the fact that the act can be defined by different maxims and thus may not always be able to be applied situations universally (Tsagdis, G, 2019). Additionally, Deontology allows people to think morally without the influence of pleasure and pain (Tsagdis, G, 2019). This is a weakness in Utilitarianism because with their theory it is difficult to always maximise happiness and at the same time, prioritise the importance of pleasure and pain. This is because pleasure and pain tend to be perceived differently with different people, therefore in some cases people would consider pain to be a source for happiness (IB, 2019). As well as this, utilitarianism seems to neglect individual rights as one can kill another when maximising their own happiness. Whereas, Deontology supports the idea of autonomy where it recognises the importance of individual value.

Following from the strength, we can see that Deontology’s idea of the absolutism raises moral stakes. However, this can also be an issue because of the conflicts that can occur between categorical imperatives (Tsagdis, G, 2019). As a result of this dilemmas like deciding whether Luttrell should kill the farmers or not may become difficult to resolve. As well as this, by having a fixed way of dealing with things it can be difficult to deal with problems that may not fit accordingly with the rules and as a result of this exceptions tend to be formed which then means that it is not universal (BBC, 2019). Finally, theories from Deontology and Utilitarianism, both share a weakness. The weakness comes from the fact that both theories focus on principles that are either motivated by pleasure and pain or duty and reason. This reflects the fact that Luttrell had a duty to do the right thing and at the same time maximise happiness. However, both these theories only present ways humans should behave, rather than the giving reasons as to why they would behave in this way. To conclude, both theories that have been mentioned have a variety of strengths and weaknesses. Deontology is a theory that can be applied to any given real-life situations or problems because many choose to make decisions based on morals and tend to do the right thing. However, with Utilitarianism many would argue that it is natural to think of the consequences first which will then influence the motive of an action.

Appendix- Case Study The case study “The Afghan Goatherds” (Sandel, 2010) established a dilemma among the US soldiers as they were caught by farmers in Afghanistan. The dilemma occurred when the soldiers could not decide whether they should let the farmers who were in fact, unarmed civilians, free or to kill them.

References 1. Baker, A. (2019). [online] Cis.org.au. Available at: https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2015/04/images/stories/policy-magazine/2010winter/26-2-10-andrew-baker.pdf [Accessed Feb. 2019]. 2. Bbc.co.uk. (2019). BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Duty-based ethics. [Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml [Accessed Feb. 2019]. 3. IB, A. (2019). Strengths and Weakness of Utilitarianism. [online] Getrevising.co.uk. Available at: https://getrevising.co.uk/grids/strengths_and_weakness_of_utilitarianism [Accessed Feb. 2019]. 4. Sandel, M. (2010). Justice: What's the right thing to do? Great Britain: Allen Lane, pp.24, 25, 26, 27....