Deontology vs. Utilitarianism

Deontology vs. Utilitarianism
Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
Deontology vs. Utilitarianism
The central issue in ethical arguments resonates around the conflict between means and end. One divide in the debate believes that the means justify the end whereas the other one has a perspective that supports the reverse. Accordingly, arguments consider right and wrong, moral and immoral, and good and bad depending on whether the evaluators focus on the process of the activity or the outcome. The deontological perspective constitutes theories that focus on the process (Leven, 2018). The term deontology relates to the origin word “duty” indicating that there are several steps that one should take for his her actions to be considered ethical. Case in point, when it comes to election, the validity of the process depends on the procedures taken to ensure that there is no rigging of the votes. As such, the count would focus on whether or not the electoral authorities followed the right paths to ensure that voice of each voter is captured in the final tallies. However, a judge or a decision-maker whose principles incline towards the utilitarian theory would focus on the emotions and perceptions of the people, especially happiness (Ebenstein, 2018). Correspondingly, it becomes clear that utilitarianism concentrates on the happiness of the people based on the elements that gain from a given interaction. Resultantly, the process is not as essential as the benefits to those involved in the interaction. The present essay pegs on the elaboration to show that utilitarianism is proper and more reliable in establishing ethical standards than deontology since intentions and motives determine the character of an individual more than the expected activities that they would carry out as a response to artificial social constructs.
Utilitarianism is more effective than deontological ethics because intentions and motives result from natural factors such as impulsive parental protection of children and instincts of satisfying basic needs such as food, shelter, and clothes. Notably, persons who commit crimes because they were not in their sound state of mind do not experience legal charges such as incarceration. The idea stems from the fact that what counts the most is their intention instead of the damage they have caused to themselves, others, and their properties. For instance, when one has engaged in a sexual assault when he/she is insane, the court grants them exemption or acquittal based on “insanity defense.” The “insanity defense” ar...