A Vote for Deontology

Utilitarianism is the doctrine saying that what is useful is good. As Jeremy Bentham and James Mill outline, the aim is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This doctrine creates a series of calculations to determine best possible combination of intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent that a decision could create. The focus is on the ends rather than the means. It would be ethical in the utilitarian sense to torture one child in order to keep the whole town happy—an example so well outlined by Ursula LeGuin in her short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.”

Critics say that this form of thought highlight the fact that it creates extreme pain for one person even if it means that everyone else is happy. It exploits minority groups who would be sacrificed in order to promote the majority. Additionally, it risks an unequal distribution of justice. The form of thought most prominent in the debate of utilitarian thought is deontology. Deontologists argue that predicting the outcomes of an action is impossible and that a person should focus on his own actions and the things that he himself can control.

Democracy is a form of government ruled by all the people, or all eligible people, of a state. It is often described as rule by the common people. It is characterized by designated equality of rights and privileges. Basically, all people have the same rights and abilities in a state. They are all entitled to an opinion. In a democratic society, the people would have to vote in order to decide actions of the state.

Critics, like Plato, display the downsides of democracy. It can often become difficult to make decisions quickly as people must discuss, vote, and semi-agree. Additionally, as not all people involved in government are influenced by higher knowledge, society is simplified so that all can participate. For Plato, of all the forms of government, aristocracy would have been the best as the good would be leading the bad from falling astray. Further criticism shows that control by the common people can result in what we often call a “majority rule.” The decision is made by finding the item receiving the most votes. Thinking back, this seems eerily similar to problems with utilitarianism in which the minority are exploited for benefit of the greatest number. In the case of democracy, it is not the ultimate benefit of the greatest good that is emphasized, but rather greater number simply overpowers the smaller no matter the outcome.

In this sense I think an extreme in either category of thought (utilitarianism or democracy) could be detrimental to a society or organization. I don’t necessarily agree with Plato, however, when he states that an aristocracy is the best form of government. I have thought in the past that the United State’s combination of republic and democracy made a successful form of government by the people that was also limited in what the majority could accomplish. However, it does not seem that exploitation of the minorities has been reduced (i.e. civil rights movements – though successful eventually, the trials and tribulations are extensive).

This leaves me with the deontological frame of thought. We discussed three main theorists of deontology – Kant, Gert, and Rawls. Of these three, Bernard Gert had the clearest reasoning in order to develop an ethical society. Gert states that “ethical principles are universal, unchanging, discovered not invented, and not dependent on the will or decision of individuals.” He also states that there are ten basic rules which “apply all other things being equal, and can be outweighed in very unusual circumstances.” Basically, there are certain principles inherent in our way of life that should be followed at all times – but there are also situations in which a leader must make a tough decision when the principles are challenged. If there were never circumstances in which hard decisions needed to be made, we would have no need for leaders.

Thus, I agree with the critics in the fact the complete utilitarianism and complete democracy may lead to mediocrity, or some form of detriment to society or an organization. There must always be balance in the extremes and it is often up to the leader to find the proper combination. By removing the ability to adapt as leaders, we set ourselves up for failure. Instead, we must stay open to all possibilities and find the frames of thought that guide us through often uncharted territories.