12 Pros and Cons of Deontological

Ethics
Deontological ethics is a moral philosophy where the usual ethical definition of right or wrong is
based on a series of rules to follow instead of the consequences which occur from such a
decision. It is a concept which is based on a person’s obligation or duty to treat others with
respect.

Because the definition of morality through deontological ethics focuses on actions instead of
outcomes, then a decision to not take action still becomes a moral choice. You’re not focusing
on the outcome with this philosophy. The emphasis is placed on the journey that you take in
order to get to your destination.

It is a system which works on a foundation of absolutes. There is no room for negotiation with
the choice. You will either make an ethically correct decision or one that is not. If that element of
“truth” applies to religious circumstances, then the spiritual definition of salvation can depend on
your ability to determine how to go through life without harming anyone else well still following
divine truths.

The duty-based circumstances found in deontological ethics create distinctive pros and cons to
consider when looking at this moral philosophy. Here are the key points to review.

List of the Pros of Deontological Ethics

1. Deontological ethics create a foundation for human conduct.
Different versions of what we would call the “Golden Rule” are found throughout the history of
human societies. They can be summed up in this phrase: do you want to others as you would
have them do unto you. It was a concept that follows us in our spiritual lives, our professional
careers, and even in our relationships that we form.
Deontological ethics require someone to be treating others with respect without receiving it in
return to be in a position that is ethically correct. This process applies even to individual
thoughts, as you must act in a way where any action would have the capability of becoming a
universal law because of its goodness.

2. Deontological ethics create higher levels of personal responsibility.

The processes of deontological ethics requirement individuals to act as if they are the ones who
are responsible for creating the expectations and legislation that are followed in society. Any
actions taken by each person must be done in such a way that a harmonic effect occurs with
every decision. Any outcome which created this harmony would not be ethically correct in the
structure, which means it would become the responsibility of the individual to avoid such actions
at any cost.
3. Deontological ethics create moral absolutes.
The structure of deontological ethics is black-and-white. There are never any gray areas as to
what is right or what is wrong with me and society. No exceptions to any moral rules are
permitted within this concept. Even if situations arise to extreme or unforeseen levels, these
guidelines do not allow for another course of action. The outcome of this theory would be that
every person within the society could aspire to be morally perfect because there is always an
understanding of what would be expected of them from an ethical standpoint

4. Deontological ethics emphasize the value of every person.

Duty-based systems focus on providing equal respect to all human beings, no matter where
they are from or what they might choose to do. This set of ethics provides a foundation for all
human rights. It forces each of us to offer due regard to the given interests of each person even
if those ideas are at odds with the needs of a larger group. Although some versions of this
theory suggest that some acts are always wrong, the outcome is dictated by the governing
perception of “rightness.”

5. Deontological ethics provide certainty.

If someone bases their morality from the consequences of the decision, then there is uncertainty
until that information develops. That means every choice someone makes offers the potential of
being right or wrong until the outcomes become apparent. Deontological ethics take a different
approach. This moral theory offers certainty because it stays concerned with the action itself.
The action is correct and right, then an individual should do it. If it is wrong, then they should
not. All those things or not this clear cut in real life, we do understand that certain actions have a
high probability of bringing specific results. We then choose those actions because we want
those results. Deontological ethics ask us to look at the situation from the other direction.

List of the Cons of Deontological Ethics

1. Deontological ethics create a paradox.
There are times when the maximum welfare of a society is forbidden when following
deontological ethics. This structure tasks an individual with saving lives, but you cannot do this
at the expense of your own life. No act of self-sacrifice is ever listed as being a morally correct
decision what is this idea. You could not harm another person, even if you knew it would save
thousands of lives if you did. At the same time, allowing people to die because you failed to take
action is also not permitted.

Imagine you walk into a building, and there is an active shooter situation. Now let’s say that you
have a gun, and you are trained to use it correctly. It doesn’t matter what the shooter is doing in
that building. Deontological ethics dictate how you react to the situation. You would not be able
to shoot the person to stop down because it would cause them harm. It would not be
permissible to let others die either. You would need to find a third solution to stay ethically
correct.

2. Deontological ethics become useful as supernatural excuses.

Deontological ethics involved more than the human experience. They also include supernatural
events. Divine commands create moral commandments within this structure. If society believes
that God (and whatever name someone chooses to call him or her) dictates moral commands to
them, then it is their ethical duty to follow them in every circumstance. That is why some people
choose to harm others in the name of their spiritual deity. Their deontological ethics from a
supernatural source override the morality that they have on a personal level.
3. Deontological ethics are a matter of subjective opinion.
How do you define right and wrong from my deontological perspective depends on the skills and
insights of the individuals involved in the situation. Let’s go back to that active shooter situation.
If someone were to yell in the building that everyone should get out to protect themselves, they
would be in a position of ethical correctness compared to someone who pulled a weapon and
ended the situation once and for all.
Even the act of pushing someone through a door to help them leave is morally inferior with
deontological ethics then yelling about a dangerous situation.

4. Deontological ethics do not incorporate self-defense ideas.

Deontological ethics dictate that all forms of violence are wrong. There are no justifiable actions
which allow you to encourage or participate in the harm of another person, even if that individual
is trying to hurt you at that time. You are never permitted to respond in kind if someone commits
an act of violence against you.
The only permitted action you can take when following this philosophy would be to find a means
of escape. Even as you are leaving the situation, to stay in a position of moral correctness, you
would not be permitted to allow anyone else to experience harm either. There are no
exceptions. You cannot hurt yourself, and you cannot permit others to be hurt, no matter what
might be happening.

5. Deontological ethics are based on the actions that we take.

Let’s revisit the active shooter example one more time. You walk into the building. Then you lie
to the shooter, telling that person the police are about to arrive. That action is not permitted
because the statement you make is false. The argument that deontological ethics makes is that
the ethics of any situation are based on the actions a person decides to take. The better choice
in any situation that is questionable from a moral standpoint would be to do nothing because
then there would be no action to judge your morality from at that point.

6. Deontological ethics suggest that you should always do the right thing, no matter
what.
The moral philosophy behind deontological ethics suggests that each person has a duty to
always do the right thing. Your focus must be on the actions taken instead of the results
achieved. You will always be in a morally correct position, even if the results you produce are
poor, because of the desire to pursue a duty which follows the universal rules of morality. You
first consider what actions are correct, and then you proceed from there.

7. Deontological ethics are absolutist.

This moral philosophy follows an absolute set of rules. The only way that an individual can deal
with situations that don’t seem to fit the mold is to build in a list of exceptions to the rules. Then
you encounter the paradox once again. You’re not permitted to take actions that could harm
someone else, including yourself, which is what an exceptions list would do to you. That is why
the constant answer with deontological ethics is to avoid a situation if there isn’t a clear course
of action that someone should take.
These deontological ethics pros and cons look at theoretical concepts if they were applied in
real life today. The reality of this philosophical idea is flawed because truth is not universal. How
one person expresses love can be very different when compared to other expressions. What
works for one person may not work for someone else. That is why our personal focus must
come back to the Golden Rule. If we treat others in a way that we would want to be treated,
then the world would start to become a better place to live.
List of the Advantages of Utilitarianism
1. It is a universal concept that all of us can understand.
The goal of reducing personal harm while increasing happiness is something
that every person pursues at some point in their life. We don’t want to live in
misery all of the time, even if pessimism is the star of every thought that we
have. By creating a society which places more value on actions that bring
happiness, we could create a place where there is more common ground to
be found. It is a principle that applies to every culture, which means it would
be possible to take one more step closer to a borderless world.
2. You don’t need to practice a religion to benefit from this process.
Utilitarianism is a secular process which can incorporate religious elements if
that is what makes you happy. This practice is not trying to find salvation for
your soul. It won’t dictate specific beliefs about God to ensure your inclusion.
When your focus is on what makes you happy before anything else, then your
spirituality is something that you can personally direct at all times. You get to
pursue what has meaning in your life.

3. Utilitarianism follows democratic principles.

The fastest and fairest way to make decisions on a nationwide scale is to
balance the differing interest of people through a majority vote. When there is
a majority present for a vote, then the outcome is considered the “right”
course of action to take. If there is not, then the measure under consideration
is “wrong.” That doesn’t mean you need to agree with the outcome, but it does
suggest that you must accept it.
After creating a platform which suggested that the Republicans would repeal
and replace the healthcare systems put into place by the previous
administration, Senator John McCain stopped his party’s top legislative priority
with a “no” vote. His action created the distinction between right and wrong
through the principles of Utilitarianism.

4. It uses an objective process to decide what is right or wrong.

When we make a choice, then there is always a consequence for our actions.
The outcome might bring something positive, something negative, or a
mixture of the two. It is through these measurements that Utilitarianism seeks
to define morality. By recognizing the outcomes that bring happiness more
often, we can all work toward an independent and objective way to determine
what is right and wrong on a personal level.
Once we make this decision through the data we collect about ourselves, it
becomes possible to join with others who come to similar conclusions.
Although this process would likely change the way we think about building
communities around the world, it could also help to prevent the potential free-
for-all of subjectivity that would likely happen if everyone was suddenly
permitted to do their own thing.

5. This process is one that is very easy to use.

We learn very quickly in our childhood about the things that we believe are
right or wrong. You only touch a hot burner on the stove once, right? When we
begin to compare the positive effects of our actions with the negative ones,
then we can make logical choices about what our next actions will be. Even
though someone with an outlier moral code might make different choices, the
vast majority of people would look for ways to improve happiness that are
simple, straightforward, and inclusive.

We know this advantage is possible because the principles of Utilitarianism

always direct individuals toward the greatest good possible. If you cannot
achieve success without bring harm to others, is that really the best outcome?
There will always be extreme examples where this process does not work
adequately, but it does create a lot of opportunity when applied to the finer
details of life’s experiences.

6. Utilitarianism works with our natural intuition.

Although Utilitarianism sometimes struggles when approaching the issue of
harm from an emotional perspective, it does work well with our natural
intuition to not harm the people that we care about each day. The average
person does not go walking downtown with a baseball bat, striking people with
it because they think it is a fun activity. Part of the human condition is to go
about life without creating physical harm to others, partially because such a
decision could also create harm in our lives too. We must evaluate all
potential consequences when looking at how the ends justify the means,
creating more of a logical approach to each decision than some people might
realize on their first approach to this theory.
7. It bases everything on the concept of happiness.
Let’s face it: who doesn’t want to be happy in life? Many of the choices that
we make each day are a reflection of our desire to experience this emotion.
We go to work because it allows us to have the life that we want. You are
choosing to stay in a relationship with your significant other because being
with that person makes you happier and better than if you were to be alone.
Because there is a given intrinsic value to this emotional state, pursuing
activities and choices which encourage it to be present at its maximum levels
can make for a better life and society.