Life is the chain of the deeds which have the consequences

the font can be bigger

Objections against deontological theory.

People often say that absolute refusal take into account the consequences of actions can lead to the horrible results. But this objection supposes that the results (consequences) have bigger meaning. But deontologists would argue that the results have no any meaning at all.

The weightiest objection against deontological theory is the following. It is very easy to say that a person must not lie and cause harm to innocent people. But what if there is a contradiction? What is you hide innocent Jews in your house and Nazis come and ask where are these innocent people? Do you have a duty to tell the truth and calmly watch how innocent people will be brought to death? Or should you lie and thereby save several innocent lives? In any case you break the rule. In other words, not always possible to follow all the rules at the same time.

It can seem that in this relation, deontological theory seriously give up in front of utilitarianism. Utilitarians suppose that in principle always possible to know in advance what future situation promises the happiness for all, and always possible to know what actions make this situation real. Probably, they make a mistake.

Altruism and utilitarianism argue that the highest goal of the actions is making happy surrounding people. One of the goals of both is minimize suffering and maximize happiness.

Altruism is the source of permanent values of human entity – decency, honesty, benevolence, feelings of respect, friendship, love, conscience and duty, selflessness, care about well-being of other people, desire to truth and justice.

Egoist values first of all himself and he cares first of all about the interests of his own survival. Altruist dedicates his own interests to social (family) and in exceptional cases is able to sacrifice himself for the sake of survival of other people. As the result the number of egoists in any social group is higher than the number of altruists, however both of them are in our population. And as I know, many people say that being altruist and Good Samaritan is the same.

And what with the situation of abortion? So, can we say that women who want to make abortion are not altruists or Good Samaritans? They don’t care about the “creature” inside them, the creature which is potential person. So, are they murderers? Are they egoists? What is the best definition for them? There are so many points of view towards these questions.

Leave a Reply

Protected by Copyscape Original Content Checker