The Walkway between the Chasms

Deontology is defined as an ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. To simplify this further, Deontology is the principle of basing your decisions on moral issues off of the motives the actions rather than then the consequences of the actions. The philosophy of Utilitarianism on the other hand is system of determining correct actions based not on the motives behind the actions, but on the consequences resulting from the actions. Both philosophies have merit, however when applied in full, would result in the passive acceptance or proliferation of evil. Deontology is meant to be executed based upon the principle of the Categorical Imperative. This principle in essence states that rational agents should act in a way that the maxim behind their action could become universal law. An example of such an action would be telling the truth which you would do in the hope that in doing so you could will the maxim of your action-truth- into universal law. However, this philosophy at the same time states that the maxim of your actions, which in this case is truth, should never be violated. By extension this means that if you’re faced with the choice of protecting a friend or telling the truth, you are morally obligated, in spite of the consequences, to tell the truth. By embracing this philosophy you are choosing to uphold the abstract good and allow a concrete evil to occur. In the perfect intelligible world, the Categorical Imperative would be a sound way to have a society function. However, in our world which lies between that of the intelligible and subjective, we cannot base moral decisions upon an idea which cannot be fully applied. To try to apply this philosophy partially, as Kant attempts to do, is protect the abstract good while permitting the acting of concrete evil. Utilitarianism is a philosophy grounded in consequences. The principal maxim of Utilitarianism is that of “the maximum good for the maximum number of people”. So by extension this means that before a choice is made the consequences should be considered and, when doing so, it should be considered who benefits in such an arrangement. In theory this practice would be effective as you are establishing a net positive for all your decisions as would everyone else in the society. In such a society, the total weight of the positive would outweigh any negative backlash that such a system might cause. Such a system in the real world though is impractical as it would allow for corrupt men to justify horrible actions in the name of the “greater good”. History provides a plethora of examples such Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. These men believed (especially in Hitler’s case) that what they did they did for the greater good. In carrying out this higher vision or “greater good”, evil was perpetrated on a scale that is still to this day incalculable. How then are we to our lives? We cannot live out these philosophies like their creators intended as to do so would be to allow evil to occur or to justify its existence. Instead a mixture of these philosophies, in which a moral code was established for our decisions to be based on, upon to which logic would be applied to try to determine the consequences, provides the best system for a rational being to live. Extremes that can be derived, whether intended or not, from Kant and Mill’s works must be balanced out in order for a fair and just morality to prevail.