Deontological Ethics (http://plato.stanford.

edu/entries/ethics-deontological/)
First published Wed Nov 21, 2007; substantive revision Wed Dec 12, 2012

The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or study) of (logos). In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to (aretaic [virtue] theories) thatfundamentally, at leastguide and assess what kind of person (in terms of character traits) we are and should be. And within that domain, deontologiststhose who subscribe to deontological theories of moralitystand in opposition to consequentialists.

Deontology and Ethics: What is Deontology, Deontological Ethics?

Ethics as Obedience to Duty and God: Is Being Ethical just being Obedient?
By Austin Cline

(http://atheism.about.com/od/ethicalsystems/a/Deontological.htm)
Deontological moral systems are characterized by a focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. To make the correct moral choices, we have to understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules exist to regulate those duties. When we follow our duty, we are behaving morally. When we fail to follow our duty, we are behaving immorally. Typically in any deontological system, our duties, rules, and obligations are determined by God. Being moral is thus a matter of obeying God. Deontological moral systems typically stress the reasons why certain actions are performed. Simply following the correct moral rules is often not sufficient; instead, we have to have the correct motivations. This might allow a person to not be considered immoral even though they have broken a moral rule, but only so long as they were motivated to adhere to some correct moral duty. Nevertheless, a correct motivation alone is never a justification for an action in a deontological moral system and cannot be used as a basis for describing an action as morally correct. It is also not enough to simply believe that something is the correct duty to follow. Duties and obligations must be determined objectively and absolutely, not subjectively. There is no room in deontological systems of subjective feelings; on the contrary, most adherents condemn subjectivism and relativism in all their forms. Perhaps the most significant thing to understand about deontological moral systems is that their moral principles are completely separated from any consequences which following those principles might have. Thus, if you have a moral duty not to lie, then lying is always wrong even if that results in harm to others. For example, you would be acting immorally if you lied to Nazis about where Jews were hiding. The word deontology comes from the Greek roots deon, which means duty, and logos, which means science. Thus, deontology is the "science of duty." Key questions which deontological ethical systems ask include: What is my moral duty? What are my moral obligations? How do I weigh one moral duty against another?

The History of Utilitarianism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/)

First published Fri Mar 27, 2009

Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory. Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good. The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also held that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. Utilitarianism is also distinguished by impartiality and agent-neutrality. Everyone's happiness counts the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the good impartially considered. My good counts for no more than anyone else's good. Further, the reason I have to promote the overall good is the same reason anyone else has to so promote the good. It is not peculiar to me. All of these features of this approach to moral evaluation and/or moral decision-making have proven to be somewhat controversial and subsequent controversies have led to changes in the Classical version of the theory.
The Basic Idea of Utilitarianism (http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/utilitarianism%20notes.htm)

> The Greatest Happiness Principle: Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness John Stuart Mill Happiness Unhappiness = = pleasure, and the absence of pain pain, and the absence of pleasure

Happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends...all desirable things are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.

> Background on Utilitarianism English philosophers John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) were the leading proponents of what is now called Classic utilitarianism.

The Utilitarians were social reformers. They supported suffrage for women and those without property, and the abolition of slavery. Utilitarians argued that criminals ought to be reformed and not merely punished (although Mill did support capital punishment as a deterrent). Bentham spoke out against cruelty to animals. Mill was a strong supporter of meritocracy. Proponents emphasized that utilitarianism was an egalitarian doctrine.

Everyones happiness counts equally.

> Utilitarianism and the Enlightenment The science of the Enlightenment featured theories with a very small number of general laws and vast explanatory power. Newtons laws, for example, seemed able to account for all of the motion in the universe. Utilitarianism fit right in: it was an ethical theory compatible with science and featuring a single law of morality with great explanatory power. It was a sort of science of morality.

> Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism Consequentialism: Whether an action is morally right or wrong depends entirely on its consequences. An action is right if it brings about the best outcome of the choices available. Otherwise it is wrong.

The Good: Things (goals, states of affairs) that are worth pursuing and promoting.

The Right: the moral rightness (or wrongness) of actions and policies.

Consequentialists say that actions are Right when they maximize the Good.

Rhetorical argument: How could it be wrong to do what produces the most good? Wouldnt it be irrational to insist that we ought to choose the lesser good in any situation?

Utilitarianism defines the Good as pleasure without pain. So, according to Utilitarianism, our one moral duty is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.