Immanuel Kant

Kant/Mill

The basic differences between deontological moral theories and consequentialist moral theories are right in the names. The consequentialist moral theory states that the worth of a moral act is based on the consequence of that act. Deontology broken from its greek roots means ethical theory by obligation. Say you are at a restaurant and a women begins to choke on her dinner and lets assume that you are the only one there that knows CPR. The deontologist believe that it is your moral “duty” to save her life. The consequentialist believe that the consequence of saving her would bring more happiness to the world then not saving her, so the right act would be to save her. So even though both theories have completely different fundamentals, they resulted in the same act. So does that mean that even if you did it because you felt it was your moral obligation, but because the act was the act that the consequentialist would have chosen, then the consequentialist would be satisfied? NO! It is all about your motive, even though it seems like a cop out saying that consequentialism is defined by your motive, but the consequence is ultimately due to your motives.

Immanuel Kant strongly believed in the deontological moral theories. His theory was that for an act to be