Essay About Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like And Deontological Moral Theory

What Would Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?
What Would Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?
What would satisfactory moral theory be like?
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentiality moral theory. While
Consequentiality believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert
That the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good,
If that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of
the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a
situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each
need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the
Doctor’s office for a routine check-up. According to consequentialism, not
Deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save
for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests
this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the
fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete
distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a
guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against
maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since
deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is
permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to you. For
example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness
simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a
generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others
theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its
reasoning.
One objection to deontological moral theory is that the theory yields only
absolutes and cannot always justify its standpoints. Actions are either classified
as right or wrong with no allowance for a gray area. Furthermore, the strict
guidelines tend to conflict with commonly accepted actions. For example, lying is
always considered morally wrong–even a “white lie.” Therefore, one must not lie
even if it does more good. In our society although individuals accept lying as
being morally wrong, “white lies” have become an exception. Only having
absolutes creates a theory that is extremely hard only to abide by, especially
when deontological though permits you from making a choice when that choice
would clearly be optimal. One might even say deontological though is counter
intuitive. You are more responsible for making sure you don’t commit violations
than making sure others do not. So, in the case that you planted a bomb and
then later decide it was wrong, you are not allowed to sacrifice one more life to
eventually save many since that would result in another violation. In short,
deontologists overlook what might do the most good if it interferes with even one
of their moral limitations. In addition, because everything is always absolute there
are no priorities. Every moral is looked at as just the same as the other. This
creates moral dilemmas. Each action is looked at as equally good and therefore,
not committing any act is morally wrong. Thus, the theory can create situations
where one feels confused and unguided by their morals due to the lack of
priorities.