Deontology or Utilitarianism?

What is governing our morals?

         In terms of deontology, “we are morally required to do certain things because we have certain moral duties or obligations to each other” (The Open University, 2020 [a]). Many people around the world are beseeching national and local governments nautely not to desert them, but then they get to discover that 75% of the world’s wealth is in the bank accounts of a handful of individuals. If the richest 20% of the population on the world get about 75% of the world’s income, what are they morally required to do for people who live with less than US$5.50 a day (about US$165 per month)? A country like Bangladesh, e.g., which houses thousands of sweatshops for many affluent investors of all kinds of clothing companies, is -deontologically speaking- being mistreated as a means to get more and more profit for wealthy people’s companies. What rules should then govern everybody to righteously rule the way they treat others especially when financial resources are in the way?

         This is not about a mother who admonishes her children for being unfair with one another when she gives them their allowances. There ought to be rules everyone would “reasonably choose to govern the way they treat each other” (The Open University, 2020 [a]). Based on Immanuel Kant (Manson, n.d.), “each person must never be treated only as a means to some other end, but must also be treated as an end themselves.” Going back to the sweatshops in Bangladesh, these individuals are being treated as a means to get more profit for affluent investors’ companies; these Bangladeshi workers are not being treated as an end themselves in which their lives, as well as their families, can become a better, more stable one with food served ready to be eaten, clean warm clothing to wear, financial resources to provide their children with education and a safe place to live. Deontology “sees people as a source of value and never just as a tool to help achieve some desirable outcome” (The Open University, 2020 [a]). And this is not a callous comment, but poverty is a global issue many people avoid’s.

         From a utilitarian standpoint, Bangladeshi sweatshop workers’ happiness and wellbeing do not count equally when compared to the affluent investors’ way of living. If utilitarianism helps individuals decide “primarily on the rightness or wrongness of policies or actions in terms of what they bring about: their results and consequences” (The Open University, 2020 [b]), not much it is being done to bring wellbeing to those sweatshop workers (along with their families) or to minimize any feeling of unhappiness or threat of social harm (or injustice) they suffer. Utilitarianism also considers that in order to “lessen harm and maximise good overall” (The Open University, 2020 [b]), any affluent investors’ right could be sacrificed, something -of course- that is not perceived with a fine candor by the Bangladeshi’s bosses.

         Ethical rules people should live by are unfortunately not backed up by legal or political structures in all countries around the world. Deontologists who can gather round policy makers can help them consider rational individuals in their countries “as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else” (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2014). Workers, e.g., are not tools to more affluent lives if they barely have something to eat. Utilitarian ethicists can aid governmental officials and congresspeople to consider that “everyone’s happiness and wellbeing counts equally” (The Open University, 2020 [b]). By all the unwritten laws of morality humans live by, the pursuit of happiness and wellbeing is not exclusive of the richest 20% of the population on the world who get about 75% of the world’s income; it is part of what humankind aspires to get.

Deontology or Utilitarianism? by Jonathan Acuña on Scribd

Friday, November 20, 2020