Introduction
Consequentialism and Deontology are two moral theories that define the ethical parameters based on which an individual should act. Both theories share opposite concepts. For Kant and Mill, actions are either classified as right or wrong with no excuse for a grey area. But for a common man, strict guidelines and principles have a propensity to conflict with normally accepted actions. Both Kantianism and consequentialism attempt to answer the moral nature of human beings: while
John Stuart Mill’s theory is based on utilitarianism which is based on utility or doing what produces the greatest happiness. Immanuel Kant’ theory is based on the view that reason is the authority to determine the virtue. (Maritza). To Mill, the rightness of an action is determined by its end, whereas to Kant actions are justified only if they are from a good will (Johnson). John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) is known as a Utilitarian Consequentialist who is considered to be the classic proponent of the consequentialism. Emmanuel Kant was a German philosopher whose ideas are usually known as Deontology or Kantian theory.
Mill and Consequentialism
Consequentialism stresses the concept that normative properties depend only on consequences. As the theory suggests, the moral rightness of an act is determined by the consequence of that act or something related to that act such as the intention behind the act or a general law demanding acts of the same manner. Consequentialism can be a driving force behind many actions of the individual and actions become part of consequentialism as they are perceived in connection with the consequences behind them. John Stuart Mill’s principle, ‘the greatest happiness hierarchy’ which suggests that the perusal of specific kinds of pleasure is of higher value than the perusal of other values is hedonistic in its nature. In other words, the virtue is originally esteemed for the sake of contentment it produces. (Armstrong).
What is Deontology?
One can come across a number of noticeable differences between deontological moral theory and consequentialist theory. According to this theory, certain actions are wrong no matter what consequences follow them. The supporters of this theory believe that to lie is always wrong and that it is not the consequences of an action that determine the right of an act. Deontological ethics also vary based on the disagreement between the thinkers. The term deontology was for the first time used by C. D. Broad to distinguish different ethical theories regarding the relation between values and right action. Following his ethical notion many other theories also originated with the deontological features. The deontologists believe that an act is right or wrong is already determined and moreover whether a situation is good or bad depends on whether the contributory factors were right or wrong. (Full text of Values, Immediate and Contributory, and their Interrelation).
Immanuel Kant and Deontology
For Immanuel Kant, acting according to one’s duty is the basis of all moral actions. Consequence is not the key factor that determines whether an act is right or wrong but the motive of the person who performs the action. To act in a morally right way one must act from duty, considering that the highest good must be both good in itself and ‘good without qualification’ (addition of something that never makes a situation worse). (Deontological Ethics). Kant also argues that though people consider the things like pleasure, intelligence and perseverance as good, really they are not so because they are neither intrinsically good nor good without qualification. (Deontological Ethics). He also purports that a good consequence is not the proof that an action was good because good consequences can arise accidentally even from a harmful deed. Similarly, a well-motivated action can sometimes cause bad consequences. The conclusion drawn is that it is the will of the person that determines whether one’s action is good or bad and the good will of the person is in turn affected by the moral codes and laws that prevail in the society. Besides, a good will is only good when a person decides to do an action because it is that person’s duty. (Deontological Ethics).
Critique of both theories
Mills’ Utilitarian concept seems to be strong but it minimizes the value of love and other feelings, which can plunge the world into terrible uncertainty. Moreover the theory confronts with many other realities. For example, majority of people pay greater value to the pleasure and wellbeing of their family members than seeking their own happiness. Very often people admit pains for the sake of others for they value truth and other intrinsic qualities greater than the highest happiness. Similarly, as Kant purports, moral justification cannot always be taken for granted based on the categorical imperative. If a husband for being truthful tells his wife that she is not fine-looking, what would be the consequence? Obviously the remark would adversely affect her confidence and overall performance. Which is good enough? A little flattering which would make a person creative or an acerbic truth that can thrust someone into depression. To be sincere to his theory Kant has to choose the latter. Both Mill and Kant rightly promote the independence of the individual in choosing moral behavior. However, Mill is concerned with results, and favors both individual and society. Kant has the intense view that results should have no manner on choosing to do right. To Kant, freedom requires the active and conscious involvement of the reason and the freedom of the will of the individual. Similarly, the basic idea of the connection between freedom and morality extends from the individual to the entire humanity. (Moral Theories of Mill and Kant).
Mill’s Theory versus Kantian Theory
According to Kantian theory an act must have a moral content in itself with concern to a sense of moral duty. To Mill the ultimate rightness was happiness. He argued that the inherent ethical value of life for everyone was to attain pleasure. He postulated that as long as the final consequence of an act is favorable for many people even the dirty nature of the act is not a serious matter. A person who is in favor of Kantian view believes that the pure virtue is pure individual motivation and not the consequence. To Kant a good act is performed due to an obligation to the ‘categorical imperative’. The rightness of the action according to Mill was judged by the amount of happiness or sadness the action creates. For instance, a young man died in an accident and the relatives got confused whether to let his dying mother know about the death of her only son. To Kant, lying is against the universal law and therefore he would tell her the unhappy news. Whereas Mill would consider the after-effects and would come to the conclusion that the news would make the mother sad and therefore he would tell a lie. He thinks that such an act would allow the old mother die peacefully and for that reason the act is right. In that context Mill’s maxim seems to be more appealing. The Kantian term ‘categorical imperative’ is ambiguous and often fails when life confronts with realities. In a practical society a system of morals must be present to institute what is right and what is wrong. Yet almost everything in a society is at least loosely based on simple relationships. So strictly following the ‘duty’ would sometimes crumble the society. It is not the innate moral obligation that always bridges the social harmony. The moral feelings can be inculcated through education as Mill believes not the ‘pure reason’. Here is the significance of utilitarian view of dictating the people’s behavior to establish the golden rule in the society. In fact there is no moral thought as innate moral thought. All the moral concepts are cultivated in the human minds by a number of factors like culture, religion, family, friends, education and ideology. Although Kantian theory has a superficial outlook of love, in practical life world as a whole follow the Millian way. To clarify, suppose a deadly terrorist, who believes that it is his primary duty to kill a particular segment of people, attempts for a bomb attack in a railway station. What must be the response of a good citizen, if there is no alternative other than shoot him to death? If he does so, he could save thousands of lives, and if not, save the one culprit and let others be killed. What is the parameter that would best workout – the practical choice justifies Mill, the Utilitarian Consequentialist.
Works Cited
Armstrong, Walter Sinnott. Consequentialism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2006.
Deontological Ethics. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 2009.
Deontological Ethics. Absolute Astronomy.com. 2009.
Full text of Values, Immediate and Contributory, and their Interrelation. Internet Archive. 2001. Web.
Johnson, Robert. Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Maritza, P. Kant and Mill’s Theories. Essay Depot. 2009.
Moral Theories of Mill and Kant. Lots of Essays.com. 2009.