Both the utilitarian and deontological theories of ethics have different draws for the individual moral agent. On the one hand, utilitarian ethics emphasizes the consequences of actions with respect to achieving a personal good such as happiness and therefore puts forward a quite functional ethic in a pluralistic society: the good is namely that which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number.On the other hand, deontology offers a very clear ethical system in that it gives structures or laws to follow based on reason or authority by which the individual can do his or her duty and therefore know with clarity if he or she is acting ethically.
In my life I seem to emphasize both of these theories at different times. For example, on the issue of speeding I often take a consequentialist approach: if I do not hurt anyone and if I am able to arrive on-time to an important meeting, then I think it is ethically permissible for me to speed.However, on other issues I take a deontological view. For example, when it comes to paying my taxes, I never cheat because I cannot ethically will that all people would do the same thing, namely cheat on their taxes.
In this respect, I feel a bit torn, but if I was forced to lean toward one ethic or the other I would probably lean more toward deontology. The following is an example that displays better my ethical stance. I am by nature and by principle a pacifist. When the war against Iraq broke out in 2003 I was horrified.At the time many people were throwing around arguments about just war theory and why the invasion did not fulfill the criteria for starting a war. I often reacted against those arguments, not because of their stance against the war (in this I was in full agreement) because of their consequentialist nature.
My colleagues were arguing that under certain conditions, and if good results could be either guaranteed or at least probable, it was acceptable to go to war. However, in my arguments then and in my mind now, war is always wrong.Of course, it is wrong because it entails killing innocent people, destroys cultures, costs great deals of money and ultimately leads to greater animosity among warring groups, but these are not the reasons I think it is wrong. I believe it is wrong because of a general principle that “it is never right in any situation to kill another human being”.
This is something more akin to one maxim of Kant’s categorical imperative, namely that we should never treat people as means but always as ends.In war, human lives always become the expendable in the quest for a greater goal, and that is why I cannot support it. In 2003 the U. S.
invaded Iraq with the expressed goal of “liberating the Iraqi people” but any informed person could see that there was much more going on than mere liberation. We had our own interests wrapped up with foreign oil and power struggles within the Middle East and the cost was countless numbers of human lives. In my opinion and within my ethical system, this was simply unacceptable.
