Deontology Vs. Consequentialism

Deontology Vs. Consequentialism


Two of the major schools of philosophical thought are consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism argues that when one seeks to find normative properties depend on the consequences of an action. (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2003) in other words, the ends can justify the means. Taken to its absurd conclusion, it would ethical to harvest the organs of non-consensual patients to save others if the “others” were of better benefit to society. A homeless person that was terminal could be used to save the life of a scientist or researcher that was close to the cure of a major disease even if the homeless person had not previously consented to having his organs harvested. After all it would be better for society to have a researcher alive than a homeless person that is using resources without contributing to society. While it is opinion I feel safe in saying that most would agree that it is unethical to harvest the organs of non-consensual patients. Consequentialism, at its absurd end would disagree.

Utilitarianism, being part of consequentialism, argues that we should work towards normative actions that are also part of the greater good. In our earlier example with a homeless person, it may be considered ethical to harvest the organs of all deceased homeless persons to prolong the life of other people who may go on to contribute to society. Again, this is an absurd conclusion.

Deontology, on the other hand, argues that Kantian principles of a categorical imperative, or a duty that is consistent across all people, should guide normative actions. (Alexander, 2007) In other words, moral and ethical norms guide decisions instead of consequences. Back to our example of our homeless man, if our ethical norm is that organs should not be harvested from non-consensual patients no matter the need, than we cannot harvest them no matter how many researches we may save.

However even deontology can be taken to its absurd end. If we assume that killing for any purpose is morally wrong, than we could not kill in self-defense or in a war where we are attacked.

The above examples serve to not only illustrate the differences between deontology and consequentialism but how they can be taken to their absurd ends. In most ethical dilemmas it is unlikely that most of us sit down decide which school of thought we are going to use. Many of us, who seek to act ethically, often seek to balance harm against good in our actions. That may be consistent with deontological thought or consequential thought. It depends on the given dilemma in front of us. However, understanding both schools of thought allows us a way to better understand our decisions and allows us insight into decisions. By deepening our knowledge of philosophical schools of thought we also begin to internalize processes for ethical decision-making.


















Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2003, May 20). Consequentialism. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/






Alexander, L. (2007, November 21). Deontological Ethics. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

The Train Dilemma!!

The train dilemma is a common thought-problem that pops up in most any ethical discussion. Below are my responses. In this question I assume the children are innocent. The old man presents a host of unknowns, some of which I will address.

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switchperson. By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. Will you throw the switch?

This one is fairly easy for me to answer as it’s just a basic utilitarian response. Of course I’d throw the switch and save five children to save one. Assuming that all the children are equal and with equal potential I’d save the five. However, should the five children be deficient in some manner and the single child be a prodigy I may choose to save the child that can benefit society the greatest. While such a thought is abhorrent and reeks of eugenics the point of this question is to look past the obvious. The utilitarian in me says that I should seek to save that which benefits all of us the most.

You are standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the train and all the children will be saved. Will you push him?

Is the old man a doctor, a surgeon, a great thinker, or a researcher with a cure for disease? If so I would choose to save the old man though he may hate me for it (and I’d probably hate myself.) The children are untested variables and may grow into great thinkers or great criminals. We don’t know what they are going to do and thus their potential cannot be considered if a known variable (provided this variable is a great positive) is available.

Should I know nothing about the old man, I would choose to save the children. The children do possess potential and the old man may be near the end of his. All other things being equal it is better to save future potential than potential that has run its course.

Same scenario except: The one child on the side track is your child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

In some ways this isn’t a fair question as it ignores the biological imperative we have to protect our own children. Of course not everyone has a need to protect their own children and we see them paraded on the news as monsters. This is not a label that I entirely disagree with though I find dehumanizing anyone to be path to moral ruin.  If I apply the same logic as I did in question two and my child is a person of low potential, I should save the old man. However, such an act would be beyond the pale and the idea of being able to sacrifice my child for the greater good is not one that I could accept.  It is an interesting question as it tests one’s resolve to a moral purity but moral purity cannot overcome such a strong biological drive as protecting one’s own child.