Utilitarianism and Deontology

Dan Wennogle

Utilitarianism:

Using any means to create the most ends of maximum goodness; Utilitarianism subordinates the "right" to the "good".

Deontology:

Ends and consequences are irrelevant in determining moral correctness of an action (or mean); it is the action itself, not the result, that is good or bad.

Case I

Should George take the jobs that he is morally opposed to because it is geared towards harm in order to help his family? What if taking the job keeps a more unscrupulous person from taking it and causing more harm to the human race in general?

• Utilitarian
  The results are what matter. By taking the job he will make his family happy, but he will be working for a place that increases the possibility for harm to the human race. It seems that happiness for his family would mean trouble for the world at large. Good is not maximized and the 'eudaimonistic' route must be taken. But what if the job will still exist even if he doesn't take it and an unscrupulous person does?
  Maybe by taking the job he will be preventing the CBW company from developing a weapon that promotes easy use of force, or causes extreme human suffering. If this happens, then George has made his family happy and decreased harm to the world. He has maximized the good in this situation. Therefore, he should take the job.

• Deontologist
  The act is what matters. First, by taking the job, George will be violating his moral convictions against CB warfare. Secondly, his action cannot be justified universally. That is, taking the job to help his family is not an action required by a categorical norm. Finally, George is violating Kant's categorical imperative by using a human being, his employer, as merely a means to help his family. Even accepting the job to prevent other unscrupulous people from getting it is deontologically wrong because he is still using his employer merely as a means. That the employer is being used merely as a means is clear by the fact that George finds further redeeming qualities about the job itself. He should refuse the job.

• Objections raised in precept:
  There were a number of good objections raised in precept. The most memorable one was that against my simplistic view of the categorical imperative. When George takes the job, I said he was using his employer as merely a means. However, it was pointed out that his employer has a choice whether to hire him or not. If the employer is clear about George's reservations and hires him regardless, he made a choice and must live with George's decisions. Furthermore, it was pointed out that George's employer has a choice about how to develop the weapons and whether to use them. Are these choices enough to free George from responsibility?