What Would Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?

What would satisfactory moral theory be like?

Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentiality moral theory. While

Consequentiality believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert

That the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good,

If that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of

the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a

situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each

need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the

Doctor’s office for a routine check-up. According to consequentialism, not

Deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save

for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests

this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the

fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete

distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a

guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against

maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since

deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is

permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to you. For

example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness

simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a

generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others

theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its

reasoning.

One objection to deontological moral theory is that the theory yields only

absolutes and cannot always justify its standpoints. Actions are either classified

as right or wrong with no allowance for a gray area. Furthermore, the strict

guidelines tend to conflict with commonly accepted actions. For example, lying is

always considered morally wrong--even a “white lie.” Therefore, one must not lie

even if it does more good. In our society although individuals accept lying as

being morally wrong, “white lies” have become an exception. Only having

absolutes creates a theory that is extremely hard only to abide by, especially

when deontological though permits you from making a choice when that choice

would clearly be optimal. One might even say deontological though is counter

intuitive. You are more responsible for making sure you don’t commit violations

than making sure others do not. So, in the case that you planted a bomb and

then later decide it was wrong, you are not allowed to sacrifice one more life to

eventually save many since that would result in another violation. In short,

deontologists overlook what might do the most good if it interferes with even one

of their moral limitations. In addition, because everything is always absolute there

are no priorities. Every moral is looked at as just the same as the other. This

creates moral dilemmas. Each action is looked at as equally good and therefore,

not committing any act is morally wrong. Thus, the theory can create situations

where one feels confused and unguided by their morals due to the lack of

priorities.