Introduction
Different philosophical theories approach questions of morality and mortality from different angles: some evaluate the individual, while others put public goods first. Deontology and consequentialism are in constant confrontation and assess action’s benefits and rationality from different angles. According to deontology, the proper steps are taken for the good of society. For consequentialism, those that bring about the best outcome for each individual. Although the difference in moral assessment is determined by the degree of personal involvement in the future of society, it is nevertheless necessary to better understand why taking action is a moral issue in the evolution of civilization. The deontological and consequentialist approaches are compared, and their main pros and cons, similarities, and differences are identified.
Deontology
The deontological position is based on the assertion that specific actions are morally unacceptable not because they reduce the quantity of the primary good(s), but because they are intrinsically wrong. These actions are contrary to certain principles and norms that every human being must accept by their conformity to reason, human nature, or the Divine Will. In such a case, fulfilling personal normative requirements is not secondary and instrumental. It is self-valuable and does not require any additional justification involving reference to beneficial consequences (Tseng and Wang). Deontological ethics can take the form of unconditional respect for rights or ethics of total compliance with prohibitions.
Firstly, the pros of deontology are based on the fact that a person always has personal responsibility and must be held accountable for all their actions. All actions should achieve a harmonious existence for all members of society, but it is impossible to use all means to achieve this goal (Shokley “Deontological Ethics: Summary”). The simplest example is the observance of the commandments: for instance, one should not kill or steal because it destroys civilization. Nevertheless, there are also disadvantages of deontology: among them stands out the fact that it is long and challenging to choose the right one among the great multitude of solutions. Moreover, it is impossible to create clear step-by-step instructions for achieving harmony because society evolves for different reasons.
The evaluation of deontology is based on what is taken as moral goods in society. It can be argued that this approach is of considerable benefit because it demonstrates the extent to which each person is responsible: for example, whether all teachers are conscientious and, if not, why not (Caciuc 76). This approach creates the general moral universals of society necessary for its evolution. Although deontology reduces collective responsibility and does not provide available insights into the appropriateness of decisions, it can and should be used to achieve moral happiness.
Consequentialism
Consequentialist ethics assume that the full content of morality is ultimately determined by the requirement to increase the amount of a critical good or set of goods present in the world. A morally justified action is one that, in the face of the circumstances and in conjunction with various causal chains, makes the world or some part of it available for analysis, better concerning the measurable goods taken as a point of reference (Card and Noah). Such goods can be the well-being of people and other living beings, the enforceability of rights, the acquisition by people of objectively valuable character traits, and their creation of objectively priceless artifacts, such as aesthetic, cognitive, and others. The simplest and most common version of consequentialism takes as its starting point a good such as well-being (it can be understood in terms of simple life satisfaction or the more complex quality of life).
Consequentialism is a simple, accessible, and understandable philosophical approach that provides a clear picture of the situation. Unlike other philosophical theories, this one proposes to find a single rational solution at a given moment in time and act on it. A significant plus is that this approach chooses falsehood as one of the roots of evil (Shokley “Consequential Ethics: Summary”). Nevertheless, there are substantial weaknesses with this approach. Among them stand out the difficulty of moral evaluation and the impossibility of clearly predetermining the value of consequences (Card and Noah). The uncertainty of decisions, the lack of a moral component, and the lack of quantification of results lead to doubts about the rationality of the approach.
The evaluation of consequentialism is shaped by what various rational groups of philosophers have called this approach. On the one hand, it offers the idea of rightness in terms of a moment in time. Man makes choices because morality tells him to do so. But on the other hand, it is uncivilized because it is impossible to evaluate objectively morally, and consequentialism takes on too significant a burden (Österberg 130). It means that the problems of consequentialism exceed their positive aspects, and the approach needs many refinements.
Comparison
The deontological approach and consequentialism seem to be two opposing concepts, but they share a common core of uncertainty about future outcomes. Both methods assume that actions, calculated or momentary, will produce positive consequences that will benefit everyone and society as a whole. However, deontology depends on moral values that are universally recognized and placed above any specific criteria for the individual’s morality (Roby 5). Although it relies on the principle of lesser harm, it nevertheless places adherence to public morality above personal morality (Tseng and Wang). In contrast, consequentialism depends on individual qualities; it is less demanding (Roby 8). Theoretically, this approach may harm this or that person, but the outcome will be positive for the decision-maker. This duality causes consequentialism and deontology to clash in evaluating moral criteria constantly.
My Choice
I find consequentialism is more accurate; despite its disadvantages is still valid. In addition, this theory orients each person toward personal comfort and goals. I do not particularly appreciate that it suggests justifying the ends by any means necessary. Still, I think rationality is judged differently by each person, and the standards are not always equal to the cruel and daring. I choose this approach because personality is vital in it: harmonious individuals will create a harmonious society. Each person nurtures their morality, though some basic deontological principles guide them.
Conclusion
Thus, deontology and consequentialism differently treat what action is considered correct. In the first case, one should strive for social harmony and not harm any member of society. On the other, one must assess the necessity of action at a particular time. Both approaches are similar in that they add to an uncertain and not entirely objective assessment of moral reality. The difference is that deontology draws attention to personal responsibility for society, while consequentialism focuses only on the individual. For me, consequentialism is the closest because it anticipates the evolution of the individual. I believe that harmony in society will be achieved when each person becomes morally decadent.
Works Cited
Caciuc, Viorica-Torii. “Aspects on Assessment Deontology of Teachers”. LUMEN Proceedings, Vol. 12, 2020, pp. 74-83.
Card, Dallas, and Noah A. Smith. “On Consequentialism and Fairness.” Frontiers in artificial intelligence vol. 2. 2020.
Österberg, J. “Consequentialism: Assessment”. In: Towards Reunion in Ethics. Philosophical Studies Series, Springer, Cham, 2019, pp. 121-155.
Roby, Brandon. Virtue Ethics, Deontology, and Consequentialism”. Student Research Submissions, 292, 2018.
Shokley, Paul R. Consequential Ethics: Summary. 2019. Prshockley, Web.
Deontological Ethics: Summary. Prshockley, Web.
Tseng, Po-En, and Ya-Huei Wang. “Deontological or Utilitarian? An Eternal Ethical Dilemma in Outbreak.” International journal of environmental research and public health vol. 18, 2021.