Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism and Ethics of Care:
A Comparison of Theories, and How They Defend Human Dignity”
By
Michael Phelan O’Toole
(Essay 2)
Mass Bay Community College
Ethics / PH 102
Professor Robert Tarutis
December 17th, 2008
In an effort to better understand what is considered “good,” it is necessary to compare what the ethical theories of utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and the ethics of care conclude about how one acts morally, and how these different approaches exist as a defense to the concept of our having natural human rights.
Deontology is an ethical approach wherein the morality of actions is based on the motives or intentions behind the action, rather than its actual consequences. This philosophy is based around duty and principle, dealing with human rights. Immanuel Kant believed that, as human beings, we have an obligation to adhere to “the good,” in an unconditional sense. For an action to be deemed right, it must be intrinsically good, and thus should not be altered due to someone perceiving it as otherwise, or the consequence of that good act causing harm to someone or something unintentionally. Kantian deontology says that the intent to do right is what matters, as, in acting according, one is upholding the values of good. Kant argues that the effect of a well-intended action in itself cannot be the motivator for the act, as just as a right choice can lead to tangible positive consequences, there is nothing to stop a wrongfully minded act from somehow paving the way for something good. Kant’s philosophy asks one to consider the potential outcome if every action they took became a universal law. This is his categorical imperative.
The practice of good intention becomes an unwavering thing, as the obligation to always act within reason needs to be applied equally and without prejudice to be effective. The actual outcome of