FREE ESSAY ON CONSEQUENTIALISM VS. DEONTOLOGY

CONSEQUENTIALISM VS. DEONTOLOGY

A Thought Experiment
The moral obligation to one's spouse is very important. If a person vows to love, honor
and cherish until death do them part, then this before God and all who witness that to be
true. If the actions of one or the other cause a "rift" in the relationship then this
could be the beginning of the end of a marriage. From a consequential point of view, the
person knew what he or she was doing and also knew there would be malice results from the
actions if discovered by the spouse. I believe the wife in the River Thought Experiment
saw it that way. From a Deontology point of view, the individual was doing what he or she
did because their spouse did not meet the "moral obligation" of marriage to them.
Based on the above statement and with some great thinking, my standing on this topic is
of a consequential viewpoint. Basically, the wife knew "the job was dangerous when she
took it." This refers to both the marriage and taking on the extra marital affair she had
to endure with the boat owner in order for her to get across the river to see her
husband. The wife has more then likely come to the conclusion that if her husband becomes
aware the affair, there will be sever repercussions. But I can't help but to relate back
to the view of a Deontologist for a moment. I view the wife as a consequentialist and the
husband as a Deontologist in a basic sense. The wife weighed the options that if she
wanted to see her husband again she had to do what the boat owner wanted in order for him
to give here a ride across the river. The option to have an extra martial affair to
satisfy her isn't a factor. As mentioned earlier as to the "consequences", the outcome of
what could happen if discovered by the significant other. As for the husband, this is a
perfect case label for a deontologist. The husband, as any logical thinking person,
should see it that when you take the vow to "love, honor, obey and cherish until death do
you part", that is one of the most strongest agreements one can make in their life to
themselves and to the other person. Most can agree with the idea the idea of divorcing or
at least putting the cheater through the most possible discomfort mentally and/or
physically for abandoning their "moral obligation" to the marriage vows. The married
woman loved her husband enough to give the boat owner whatever he wanted just so that she
could be with her husband. She viewed the overall good as to get across the river be with
her husband. It is known that the consequences were weighed because when she asked the
boat owner to help her, she was not willing to agree to his counterproposal. But only
have the she thought about how much she loved and missed her husband was it that she
decided to do whatever it took to be reunited with her husband. The husband should be
more understanding and except the actions of his wife due to the circumstances of the
overall situation. Deontology can't be a factor in my view of this because the moral
obligation was still met but because it was the actions where not something to be proud
of. The wife so that to be true and ever told her husband what she had to do to be there
with her husband, but he turned his back on her. The husband should take in consideration
that his wife made one of the most severe sacrifice if not the most severe one possible.
It should be here where a consequential point of view takes effect. The husband should
have forgiveness in his heart for the over all good of their relationship. He should be
letting his wife know that it is ok that her actions, although were of bad taste and
against all that their marriage stood for, that she loved him enough to do whatever it
took to get to his side and also confide in him to tell him the truth and want his
forgiveness. So my standing on is his deontologist reaction is not fair or a correct view
in this case.
The old lady that takes the married woman in has a consequential standpoint. This is an
old woman who is all alone in her home with know friends or family. Since she can't get
across the river because she's too old and weak to swim the harsh currents, she sees the
opportunity to no longer be alone. Consequentially, she knows that if she turns the
married woman away she'll have no one to talk to and share her roof with. But if she
allows the woman into her home, she'll not only will she be doing a "good deed" for
herself so that she won't be alone but also a good deed for the married woman. This could
keep her sense of "moral obligation" to others intact. I guess it could be said, "help
yourself by helping others". Like everyone else in the world, almost everything we do can
relate to the "double edged sword". The old lady will get a double profit from allowing
the married woman into her house.... morally and to satisfy her need for companionship.
So on a consequential point of view, I believe the old lady sees the overall good to not
be alone anymore rather then to do a 'good deed". But why not make it seem that since
she's a little old lady being nice that she's a morally good person and that she's only
trying to help her fellow man. I don't believe in the deontologist standpoint here
because ever though it can fall under the classification, she was able to capitalize on
relieving her stress of someone to communicate with in her house.
To conclude my overall stand on the Consequentialism vs. Deontology, I believe that
Consequentialism is a better principle on almost every situation. I believe this because
that everything happens for a reason and that the issues have to be approached in a
logical yet emotional charge. We should learn that when stuff happens in life sometimes
it's going to be good and sometimes it's going to be bad. When it turns out to be bad and
decisions have to be made, CONSEQUENTIALISM comes into play. Making decisions on things
like what's you're going to have for lunch to where you want to buy your first house.
When decisions have to be made, consequences should always be included or else life will
more then likely fall around you. "Moral Obligation" is all fine and dandy but it's not a
way of life, as we know it anymore. Everything people do they want it to be so that they
can be thought of as a good person. But it's obvious that everything has been thought out
in a consequential mindset. The society we live in has many prejudices and greed. We
can't do anything in our lives that is "the right thing to do". Plain and simple, it's
done for the over all good with consequences weighed and a final decision rendered.
Because of economy and greed, we embrace Consequentialism and some of us don't even know
it. The everyday decisions we make from calling in sick to deciding if we should hurry
back from lunch. I for one could take the assumption I live my life in this way. I'm
always struggling with decisions about regular life choices, weighing the pros and cons
per say. So after the putting much though and from some experience, I take a stand on
Consequentialism over Deontology for the reason I believe that I look at everything with
an open mind. By that I mean I see everything from more then one view and try to relate
to it. After being introduced to this topic, I have a standpoint of Consequentialism and
believe in it to the highest degree.