Kant/Mill The basic differences between de ontological moral theories and consequential ist moral theories are right in the names. The consequential ist 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 de ontologist believe that it is your moral “duty” to save her life. The consequential ist 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 consequential ist would have chosen, then the consequential ist would be satisfied? NO! It is all about your motive, even though it seems like a cop out saying that consequential ism is defined by your motive, but the consequence is ultimately due to your motives. Immanuel Kant strongly believed in the de ontological moral theories. His theory was that for an act to be moral the act must be done out of your feelings that it is your duty, no matter what the consequence.
If for even one second you think about how the act could benefit you or act because of a joy or happiness that you get for it, then the act is considered immoral. This is were I see a flaw in his theory. If I was at the store and the very attractive clerk gave me change for a twenty instead of a ten, and first I realized it was my moral obligation to give her money back, (decision made) and my second thought was that my honesty may help me carry on a meaningful conversation with her which may lead to more, therefore my “duty” by giving her money back was immoral because I took in consideration my own well-being; even though if she was 70 and fat I would have still given her change back just as quickly as I did with the attractive clerk.
The Essay on Moral Theory
“What courts as a decent human being is relative to historical circumstance, a matter of transient consensus about what attitudes are normal and what practices are unjust”(Wilson). I have to disagree with Wilson’s class. Who are we to tell as a society to tell another culture that their way of living is wrong? “We must understand that to cry “tolerance” for one principle and then “offended” when ...
