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 or think about moral principles when they carry out such actions. Background: In Trolley's example, deontology provides a better answer than utilitarianism, as it is closer to a morally correct action. Individuals who follow the rules of utilitarianism practice the Greatest Happiness rule 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 value courageous actions for the greater good of society from which the majority can benefit. Although utilitarianism promotes the greatest amount of happiness, it fails to support supererogation, to be consistent and practical with its special obligations unlike deontology. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Topic Sentence: Utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their consequences; thus making them consequentialists due to the moral status that depends on the outcome of their decision, which is a consequence or reward. Evidence and Quotes: Utilitarianism focuses on promoting happiness to avoid pain but gain pleasure, meaning pleasure will benefit others. It tells someone what they should do for every moral decision without expectations, in the hopes of producing less pain and suffering. Utilitarianism is simple enough to have a universally shared value. However, the rule of utilitarianism has its goals, for example, in the trolley example, if killing five people instead of one is better from the point of view of utilitarianism, how can we be sure that it will create the greatest amount of happiness . The way in which actions are determined to be morally good based on the consequences produced. Although this example would seem to make more people happy, ultimately society cannot predict the future, so they will not know that saving those five instead of that person will result in the greatest happiness. The remaining survivors may turn out to be serial killers, injuring more people as a result. Utilitarianism also makes it difficult to determine where the line has been drawn and difficult to establish utility for any action taken. Another thing to consider about utilitarianism is that two people can have very different perspectives on what they consider morally right or wrong. In other words, not all of us have the same interpretation of what we consider good or bad. That said, happiness cannot be measured, so not everyone will benefit equally. Comment: Also, it is a way of measuring stocks on the same scale and this can have its problems. For example, someone might leave early for work to keep a few more customers happy, while someone else might stop a train to prevent a group of children from dying. It serves some shameful actions more than others because some people might use it as an excuse to justify their actions by claiming it will produce more happiness for more people. Another major flaw of utilitarianism is that it is impractical to apply because it is not possible to positively calculate the final outcomes and/or uncertainty within the large number of individuals involved. Utilitarianism is too permissive and does not respect people's rights. It is destructive because it asks too much of us, even death, to maximize death and maximize good. In the trolley example, it is ethically wrong to kill someone to save others because it isIt is immoral to kill an innocent person only in defiance of maximizing the greater good. Topic sentence: deontology evaluates actions based on their internal characteristics, not making them anti-consolationist. To put it in order of words, a good will is not good or bad because of its results or consequences, but according to the intended goal. Deontologists might argue and say that we cannot play God and choose who lives and who dies because we lack the moral authority to make that decision, nor do we know the final outcome of the situation. Deontology judges morality by assessing the nature of actions and moral agents rather than consequences. We cannot predict the future, which is why it focuses on duties and intentions, not on goals achieved. In the trolley example, you shouldn't kill one innocent person to save four others because killing is ethically wrong regardless. In this ethical system duties never end but at least it recognizes human rights. In the book “Moral Philosophy” written by Louis P. Pojam, it is stated that a good will is the application to be worthy of happiness by continuing to say “A good will is good not by what it effects or accomplishes; nor for its suitability to achieve any proposed end; he is good only because of his will, that is, he is good in himself." It tells us that deliberately killing someone is ethically wrong rather than letting someone die as harm to the cathedral, as well as valuing human life over the greater good. Comment: The deontology is consistent with its obligation not to kill, lie, or break promises, thus making the theory predictable and reliable for people. Another strength is that it supports supererogation, meaning acting above and beyond the call of duty. It is also practical because it takes into account special obligations, for example of doctors or nurses with their patients and even parents with their children. On the other hand, deontology is a paradox because an individual could not save someone else's life compared to his own. Furthermore, they couldn't have harmed anyone else even if they knew that by doing so I would save many lives. For example, a student might be at a school when an active shooter enters the campus and begins opening fire. From an ethical point of view, it would be morally incorrect to kill the perpetrator of the attack because it would cause him pain, but it would also be ethically wrong if innocent people died. Ethics also does not support the ideas of self-defense because protecting oneself and causing pain to others would be defined as morally incorrect. There is no justification in participating to harm anyone rather than anyone else, including yourself. Finally, deontology showcases supernatural excuses. This means that society can believe in God whatever he chooses to call the greater power, and, as an ethical duty, do whatever he asks in any circumstance. This can be really dangerous because it can push people to inflict pain on others if supernatural powers command it. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Concluding Paragraph: All in All, both theories have strengths and weaknesses. I have come to the conclusion that both theories are completely opposite in the sense that they approach each moral dilemma with their own distinctive and unique ideologies. I would prefer to practice ethics in real life situations because it takes into account special obligations, is more consistent and predictable. Utilitarianism would end up asking too much of myself to the point that I wouldn't be able to perform and make everyone happy, me.