Ethics: Analyzing Deontology, Consequentialism, and Their Applications

This essay delves into the core principles of deontology and consequentialism, two fundamental approaches to ethical reasoning. Deontology, rooted in duty, emphasizes adherence to moral rules and principles, while consequentialism prioritizes the outcomes of actions. The essay contrasts these theories, illustrating their application through a medical ethics example, specifically the ethical considerations surrounding euthanasia. The author argues in favor of consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism, as a superior framework for ethical decision-making, citing its focus on maximizing overall happiness and minimizing suffering. The analysis incorporates scholarly sources to support the argument, highlighting the practical implications and complexities of ethical choices in various contexts. The paper concludes by asserting the benefits of consequentialism in ethical dilemmas, especially in end-of-life scenarios, advocating for patient autonomy and the alleviation of suffering.

Running head: ETHICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS

1
ETHICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS
Part 1: Basic principles of deontology and consequentialism
Deontology is a combination of two Greek words, the first of which is deon meaning
duty. Therefore, deontology means ethics based on duty. Deontology theory thus, explains that
people are morally bound to act as per certain principles or rules of the universe (Paquette,
Sommerfeldt and Kent). The theory, as evident, lays importance on the actions of the individual.
In contrast to this, consequentialism refers to theories of ethics that give importance to the
consequences rather than the actions. According to consequentialism, people should take into
consideration the ultimate consequence of their action, even if the action is not morally good
itself (Ahlstrom-Vij and Dunn). The theory is based on two principles. First is, the rightness and
wrongness of an act relies on the outcomes of the act. Second is, “the more good consequences
an act produces, the better or more right that act”. Therefore, as it could be seen,
consequentialism pays more attention to the consequences of an action rather than the action
itself.
The main principle of deontology is that every individual is ought to perform an
imperative that is deemed necessary by laws – the categorical imperative. It is an unconditional
and absolute requirement that human beings must obey at all circumstances. The second
principle is that morality of an action depends on the human beings following certain rules or
maxims that derive from human reason. Third, actions are always wrong if those are not in line
with the universal rules and laws even if they result in greater happiness.
Consequentialism on the other hand, boasts of the principle that states happiness or
pleasure is the sole requirement that has genuine intrinsic value. Secondly, the theory states that
actions could be considered morally right if those promote happiness and wrong if those promote

2
ETHICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS
pain or displeasure. Lastly, happiness could be truly achieved when it comes for everyone and
not just a particular individual or section.
Part 2: Example demonstrating both theories
In the medical field, health practitioners, nurses and doctors are often confronted with
situations that question their morality and ethics from the perspective of both deontology and
consequentialism. For example, a person is on the verge of losing his life as he suffers from
cancer and has lost his wife recently. He hardly manages to walk and has been in the wheelchair
for weeks. He needs constant care. Now the question arises whether euthanasia is chosen as the
solution or not. From the perspective of consequentialism, euthanasia is ethical because ending
the patient’s life would mean the achievement of a greater good or pleasure for those who are
associated with the patient and for the patient himself. However, deontologists would say that
euthanasia is unethical because the action of killing is not a morally right action. Therefore,
while the consequentialists will consider the action as ethical and permissible since it minimizes
the pain and maximizes pleasure for the patient and other people, the deontologists will take it as
immoral. The reason for their view is the principle of categorical imperative. According to
deontologists, it is forbidden to kill or harm someone and hence, active voluntary euthanasia is
immoral.
Part 3: Conequentialism as the chosen theory
After analyzing both the category of theories, it is argued that consequentialism provides
a better approach to ethical-decision making. Consequentialism comprises utilitarianism as its
main theory, which if further subdivided into act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act
utilitarianism takes into account, the decisions that are taken after assessing the situation of each

3
ETHICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS
individual involved. Each decision is taken for each patient after measuring the benefits and
harms balance. Rule utilitarianism does not include any measurement of benefits ad harms;
decisions are taken based on evidence. In case of euthanasia, both act utilitarianism and rule
utilitarianism come into play. As Henk Ten Have and Jos VM Welie observe, patients should be
allowed to make their decisions if they are in a position to do so. The consequentialist approach
states that any action that results in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is
ethical or moral. In case of doing euthanasia for the patient who has nothing to live for and who
is already on the verge of dying, this approach provides the best ethical decision. However,
Hanife Ozcelik, et al., argue that the decision to kill someone even if it is based on their wish is
unethical because the person who is tasked to commit the action also goes through pain. Thus,
the situation contradicts the foundation of the consequentialist theory as it speaks for maximizing
pleasure and minimizing pain.
Euthanasia has been largely accepted in the European region as Joachim Cohen et al.
found in their study. The reason for that is the relief it gives to those facing it. Most of the
Western Europe with countries including France, Sweden, Denmark and Spain has legally
accepted euthanasia. According to consequentialists, any action leads to pain for the individual
or group is immoral and any action that causes happiness or pleasure is moral. In case of
euthanasia for a patient who is in pain, the action is moral because it results in pleasure for the
patient, as he is relieved from the pain. In addition, it results in the greatest pleasure for the
greatest number of people since those associated with the patient also will be relieved from
watching someone suffer in pain. Liliana De Lima et al., observe that those in favor of
euthanasia make valid points regarding the chronically ill and debilitated patients should be
given the right to choose their manner and timing of death. This is in line with the

4
ETHICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS
consequentialist theory because despite the action being immoral as per the deontological view,
the consequence is better. The patient wants to end the suffering of not only him but also others
and he should be allowed that right. The consequentialist approach hence, is a better approach in
making ethical decisions especially when it comes to situations such as the one described above.

5
ETHICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS
Works cited:
Ahlstrom-Vij, Kristoffer, and Jeffrey Dunn. "A defence of epistemic consequentialism." The
Philosophical Quarterly64.257 (2014): 541-551.
Cohen, Joachim, et al. "Public acceptance of euthanasia in Europe: a survey study in 47
countries." International journal of public health 59.1 (2014): 143-156.
De Lima, Liliana, et al. "International association for hospice and palliative care position
statement: euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide." Journal of palliative medicine 20.1
(2017): 8-14.
Ozcelik, Hanife, et al. "Nursing students' approaches toward euthanasia." OMEGA-Journal of
Death and Dying69.1 (2014): 93-103.
Paquette, Michael, Erich J. Sommerfeldt, and Michael L. Kent. "Do the ends justify the means?
Dialogue, development communication, and deontological ethics." Public Relations
Review 41.1 (2015): 30-39.
Ten Have, Henk, and Jos VM Welie. "Palliative sedation versus euthanasia: an ethical
assessment." Journal of pain and symptom management 47.1 (2014): 123-136.