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/