Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While
consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists
assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing
the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the
inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For
example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients
in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a
healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up. According to
consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one
man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However,
deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is
immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good.
Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and
wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists
generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral
standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in
some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is
detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself
to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations.
Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows
for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there
are arguments one can make against its reasoning.
One objection to deontological moral theory is that the theory yields only
absolutes and cannot always justify its standpoints. Actions are either classified
as right or wrong with no allowance for a gray area. Furthermore, the strict
guidelines tend to conflict with commonly accepted actions. For example, lying
is always considered morally wrong--even a “white lie.” Therefore, one must not
lie even if it does more good. In our society although individuals accept lying
as being morally wrong, “white lies” have become an exception. Only having
absolutes creates a theory that is extremely hard only to abide by, especially
when deontological though permits you from making a choice when that choice
would clearly be optimal. One might even say deontological though is counter
intuitive. You are more responsible for making sure you don’t commit violations
than making sure others do not. So, in the case that you planted a bomb and
then later decide it was wrong, you are not allowed to sacrifice one more life
to eventually save many since that would result in another violation. In short,
deontologists overlook what might do the most good if it interferes with even
one of their moral limitations. In addition, because everything is always
absolute there are no priorities. Every moral is looked at as just the same as
the other. This creates moral dilemmas. Each action is looked at as equally
good and therefore, not committing any act is morally wrong. Thus, the theory
can create situations where one feels confused and unguided by their morals due
to the lack of priorities.
However, if deontologists did not have these moral constraints the theory would
be the same as consequentialism. Consequentialism is too permissive and does
not give the individual proper rights. The moral theory overlooks our natural
moral instincts such as killing the innocent. Although those who follow the
theory are seemingly always maximizing the good, one might argue that in the
end consequentialism is destructive because it disregards all morals.
Consequentialism requires great sacrifice, even death, if maximizing the good
is involved. Thus, it takes no self-interest into account and does not look
enough at each individual. It is natural to look at the action one must take in
order to produce the result rather than simply looking at the end result.
Although deontology at times appears to be counter intuitive, the theory holds
the fewest flaws of any of the utilitarian theories. When one makes a decision
it is clear that the decision is not made impersonally. One puts great weight
and emphasis on their own self worth and personal capital. Although logically
one would like to maximize the good, most are not ready to kill an innocent
being in order to do so. Therefore, morals and the means of achieving the end
result must be taken into account. Always maximizing the good would be far too
demanding and individuals would not benefit themselves. So, it can be concluded
that the arguments rebutting deontological theory are not as strong as the
arguments supporting deontology. Also, if each individual was a deontologist
and theories we have studied such as consequentilism. Deontologists are not
slaves of maximization. They simple must uphold certain morals that would
overall benefit society. Although there are instances where deontology fails,
the examples given are generally unrealistic. Such as if one were to tell just
one lie it would prevent the entire world from never lying again. This example
even shows how each of us is guided by of morals in making ethical decisions.
One instinctively knows killing is wrong and thus we shall not kill. However,
in this situation no moral dilemma is faced because one also is aware that
killing is a worse violation than lying.
However, I believe neither argument is strong enough to accept as true when
taking completely literally using absolutes. Morals are an important aspect of
making the decisions and one should always consider the means but the ends
should also be taken into account. Each situation is unique and needs to be
assessed on an individual basis taking into consideration both morals and
maximizing the good. This would permit one to go against his morals in an
instance where it would be the “right” decision to do so. For instance, if I
knew that if I told a lie ten lives would be saved, I would tell a lie.
Therefore, I can assert that when it comes to making moral decision there is no
fact of the matter. All theories can supply guidelines aiding beings in their
moral decisions, but there will always be exceptions. So, by studying a
plethora of theories and then taking into account individual beliefs, one can
form their own educated opinions regarding what kind of action he should take.
Morals are also not always concrete. Relativist thought contends each group of
people may contain different morals. From that opinion, one may assert that
morals themselves are not absolute. Still, deontological moral theory provides
a strong base for making correct decisions. There are few realistic exceptions
to the theory and one can easily notice when an exception is to be made.
So, knowing that deontology creates a valuable beginning for a strong moral
theory, one can simply interpret the theory less strictly. Deontology can be a
quite appealing theory when not taken so literally. Clearly, one has morals
they consider more important than others. If the theory is adjust for this
idea, the notion of moral dilemmas is eliminated and one would be allowed to
lie if it saved lives. Deontology when looked at loosely is simply a moral
theory that says we have morals and we need to consider them when making
decisions. Therefore, one may conclude that the overall principles or deontology
are correct and that this moral theory should not be dismissed.