Introduction: Every day, people make decisions about what they believe is the best choice that will produce the best outcome. However, too many people do not imagine the consequences and do not think about moral principles when carrying out these actions. Context: In the Trolley example, ethics gives a better answer than utilitarianism, because it is closer to a morally correct action. Individuals who follow the rules of utilitarianism practice the rule of greatest happiness, in order to make the morally correct decision, because they want to maximize the amount of happiness for the maximum number of people involved. Thesis Statement: Both ethical systems evaluate courageous actions for the greater good of society from which the majority can benefit. Although utilitarianism promotes maximum happiness, it fails to support supererogation, be consistent, and be practical with its particular obligations unlike deontology. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Topic Sentence: Utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their consequences; therefore making them consequentialists due to moral status depending on the outcome of their decision, which is a consequence or reward. Evidence and Citation: Utilitarianism focuses on promoting happiness to avoid pain but obtain pleasure, in order to intend the pleasure to benefit others. It tells someone what to do with each moral decision, without any expectations, in the hopes of producing less pain and suffering. Utilitarianism is so simple that it has universally shared value. However, the rule of utilitarianism has its purposes, for example, in the trolley example, if killing five people rather than one is better from the point of view of utilitarianism, how can we be sure? that this will create the greatest happiness. The manner in which actions are determined to be morally right by the consequences produced. Although this example seems to make more people happy, ultimately society cannot predict the future, so it will not know whether saving these five people rather than just one will result in the greatest happiness. The remaining survivors could turn out to be serial killers, hurting more people. Utilitarianism also makes it difficult to determine the limit and usefulness of each action taken. Another thing to consider about utilitarianism is that two people can have very different perspectives on what they consider morally correct or incorrect. In other words, we don't all have the same interpretation of what we think is good or bad. That being said, happiness cannot be measured and not everyone will benefit from it equally. Comment: Additionally, this is a way of measuring actions on the same scale and can have its own problems. For example, someone might leave work early to satisfy a few more customers, while someone else might stop a train to prevent a group of children from dying. This dishonors some actions more than others, because some people might use this as an excuse to justify their actions by claiming that it will produce more happiness for more people. Another big flaw of utilitarianism is that it is impractical to apply because one cannot positively calculate the final results and/or the uncertainty linked to the large number of individuals involved. Utilitarianism is too permissive and does not respect people's rights. It is destructive because it demands too much of us, evendeath to maximize death to maximize good. In the trolley example, it is ethically wrong to kill someone to save others, because it is immoral to kill an innocent person simply in spite of maximizing the common good. Topic sentence: Deontology evaluates actions according to their internal characteristics, without making them non-consolationist. To put it in neat words, good will is not good or bad because of its achievements or its consequences, but according to the intended goal. A deontologist might argue and say that we cannot play God and choose who will live and who will die because we do not have the moral authority to make that decision, nor do we know the end result of the situation . Ethics judges morality by evaluating the nature of actions and moral agents rather than their consequences. We cannot predict the future, which is why it focuses on duties and intentions, not on achieved goals. In the trolley example, one should not kill one innocent person to save four others, because killing is ethically wrong anyway. In this ethical system, duties never end but at least it recognizes human rights. In the book titled "Moral Philosophy" written by Louis P. Pojam, he states that a good will is the application to be worthy of happiness, continuing to say "A good will is good not because of what it performs or accomplishes; nor because of its ability to achieve a proposed end; he is only good by his will, that is to say, he is good in himself.” This tells us that deliberately killing someone is ethically wrong rather than letting someone die causing damage to the cathedral, while valuing human life over the common good. Comment: Deontology is consistent with its obligation not to kill, lie, or break promises, which makes the theory predictable and reliable for people. Another strong point is that it supports supererogation in the sense that it acts beyond duty. It is also practical because it takes into consideration specific obligations, for example those of doctors or nurses towards their patients, or even of parents with their children. On the other hand, ethics is a paradox because an individual cannot save the life of others rather than his own. Besides, they couldn't harm anyone else even though they knew that by doing so I would save many lives. For example, a student might be at a school when an active shooter comes onto campus and begins opening fire. Ethically it would be morally wrong to shoot the shooter because it would cause him pain, but also ethically wrong if innocent people would die. Ethics also does not support ideas of self-defense, because protecting oneself and causing others to suffer would be defined as morally incorrect. There is no justification for participating in harming someone over anyone else, including yourself. Finally, ethics presents supernatural excuses. This means that society can believe in God whatever name it chooses to give to the greater power and, as an ethical duty, do whatever it asks in all circumstances. This can be very dangerous as it can cause people to inflict pain on others if supernatural powers command it. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Conclusion Paragraph: Everything in Brief, both theories have strengths and weaknesses. I came to the conclusion that the two theories are completely opposite in meaning.