Definition of the word morality is a group of standard applied to people, personally or socially, and used to define correct or wrong behaviours and personalities, according to the Cambridge Dictionary. In other words, morality sets the guideline for what people “ought to do”. (Potthast&Panza, 2010) It is not as difficult to explain the word itself since the literal definition expresses the popular opinion shared by the entire society. However, the opinions and recognition of morality vary among different people and cultures. It seems to be embedded in our lives as a normal thing, but in fact, morality is complicated and fairly difficult, not only for the society to agree on the same single idea, and also for individuals to reach full understanding. Therefore, in this research essay, I am going to discuss what morality is and how the concepts differ or even contrast in people’s eyes. In the following paragraphs, I will explain ideas of utilitarianism and deontology, which are two famous moral concepts, and how they are applied in dilemmas and real-world incidents. The discussion of morality is necessary, for people to understand both themselves in depth and how society should be in order to work harmoniously.
Two of the most popular moral theories will be discussed in this essay, and one of them is the consequential theory. The overall consequential theory focuses on the consequences of the actions. Utilitarianism, especially, on top of the outcome focuses on the utility, which is happiness, pleasure and well-being of the creatures in this world based on famous philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s theory. (Potthast&Panza, 2010) The central idea of utilitarianism is to encourage people to increase as much pleasure for most people as possible. The actions to achieve this goal could be justified by the outcome. In more proper words, “does the end justify the means?” The answer is yes in utilitarianism. Similarly, although an action might not be as noble, “if you can increase the overall happiness of the world in some way, then you should.” (Potthast&Panza, 2010) While a lot other moral theories insist on principles, principles do not quite matter in utilitarianism if it is, so to speak, for the greater good. This means all methods used for approaching the best ending could be considered. Yet utilitarianism does not mean an individual should treat making themselves happy as the priority. For example, if a person has to give up on their family to save millions, giving up on their family is moral. The person has to choose the majority, in order to create happiness for the most. In addition, the definition of “pleasure” varies from person to person as well. The enjoyment in utilitarianism includes entertainment and a lot more, such as the ability to think and judge. Overall, utilitarianism is mainly about maximising happiness for most. If an action is for the good of most people, it is moral in utilitarianism.
The other theory explained will be deontology. On the contrary, deontology does not believe the satisfactory outcome could be used to justify the action, and it is the action itself and the motivation behind it which matter. In general, deontology requires people to behave with principles and duty. Principles are the laws that people apply to themselves and cannot be broken under any circumstances, and duties are the actions motivated by the principles. As an example, an individual’s principle could be not harming others whatsoever, therefore their duties are to restrain themselves from getting into fights with others. Principles are not the same as rules, for that rules are from others, but they do often work together. Deontology indicates that it is moral when people follow their principles all the time, and the action matter much more than the consequences caused by it. Gray and Schein (2012) have set an example that in the centre of deontology, lying should be despised whether it is for a good result or not. Corresponding to principles, duties are what people “ought to do” caused by pure heart instead of benefit. The reason for setting these laws, from famous deontologist Immanuel Kant’s point of view, is humans’ ability to set “ends” and requirements for ourselves is what separates us from other animals. He explained that by resisting temptation caused by our natural instinct, humans are set free from the pressure given by nature, therefore deontology could be called Kantian Ethics. If people give up on morality, there would be no difference between humans and animals who cannot reason. In brief, deontology suggests acting on proper reason motivated by principles, and if something is wrong, it should not be done in any situation.
With utilitarianism and deontology explained, now we can apply them to fictional scenarios. One kind of scenarios is moral dilemmas. These dilemmas are full of paradoxes, most include harm to one group of characters and one action could transfer the harm to another group. The most well-known moral dilemma is probably “The trolley problem”. In this story, a trolley that cannot be stopped is going to run over five people. The good news is, if someone pulls the brake, the track under would be switched to aside. Nevertheless, another person is tied on the track as well, if the person making decision wants to save five people, the redirected trolley would kill him. In general, is one life less valuable than five? For utilitarians, killing the one person does not seem to bother them. As mentioned before, utilitarianism is about maximising the happiness. Saving five lives would be more important for increasing pleasure overall. In Crockett’s (2016) explanation, “The utilitarian perspective dictates that most appropriate action is the one that achieves the greatest good for the greatest number.” Although killing one person seems wrong, the consequence of saving 5 lives would make it moral in utilitarianism. In contrary, deontology insists for no matter what reason, performing murder is always immoral and against basic principles. Crockett (2016) stated that from deontological point of view, killing is simply wrong, even if it brings benefit. Deontologists argue that human lives can definitely not be used as the means to an end, which means lives cannot be used as tools for an desired outcome. To summarise, morality theories disagree with each other in this dilemma. This conflict shows how different morality theories set various standards for what is moral as well.
Morality causes controversy in not only dilemmas but also existing problems in the world right now. In particular, philosophers are now discussing if automatics should be programmed to kill in extreme situations, especially self-driving cars. The companies and the engineers for the driverless cars are now participating in studies of morality, to see who the car should kill when the brake does not work. Surveys about this question are put on a website called Moral Machine and people around the world are all taking part in the surveys. Yet the results have much diversity around the world, according to Maxmen (2018), and only some moral standards are shared globally, such as saving humans in the price of pets. Most people choose to save the most, which is quite a utilitarian decision, and it is acceptable in Edmonds’ (2018) opinion. He thinks “when it comes to machines we will be more tolerant of their making utilitarian decisions.” At the same time, deontologists refuse to make immoral choices in this case that is similar to the trolley problem. Edmond(2018) further argues as humans we still have some deontological sets of mind, that in instinct we would not be willing to use human to save a human. The Kantian theorists explain that it is always the best to stop the car instead of hitting someone. In this case, utilitarianism does seem more practical because decisions have to be made, whether moral or not, but deontology reminds us these situations are extremely rare. The self-driving car problem shows the same debate philosophers had as the trolley problems, and morality seems even more complicated when it is applied to the real possible problems.
Despite the argument, there are some areas where utilitarians and deontologists reach to agreement with different perspective but the same conclusion. One of these issues is meat-consuming. Both theories state that it is immoral to eat meat out of different reasons. Bentham, the father of utilitarianism mentioned before, has a famous quote that is often used to defend animal right: “The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” (McGregor, 2018) in utilitarianism, animal can suffer. In order to reach the maximised happiness, suffering should be reduced as much as possible. Eating meat enlarges the pain for animals. Peter Singer as a modern-date utilitarian has “launched the modern animal rights movement” and questioned if humans have higher moral status than animals as well. (Johnson, 2015) In fact, animals have emotions and sense of pain just as humans do, and this fact makes it very difficult to justify meat consuming in utilitarianism, since killing animals for the meat would clearly make them suffer. This time, deontologists agree with utilitarianism on the morality eating meat lacks. For deontologists, the action itself is wrong because of it harms the animals. Even if the animals were treated nicely before their deaths, slaughtering innocent animals for gluttony is an action that cannot be made right. In Johnson’s (2018) words, it is similar to raising kids for their organs, although the children might have lived a wonderful life and the operation procedure is painless, it still is unforgivable to treat them for the benefit, which is exactly what humans do to animals. On the other hand, Based on the deontological theory, I personally think Kant’s explanation (humans can reason, therefore are different from animals) probably cannot be used to defend carnivorous here. Instead of only “different”, animals are the victims of meat eating. When they share the same emotions, relationships and pain as humans, it is impossible to say eating meat is completely fine on the moral level. Overall, on the topic of eating meat, utilitarians and deontologists share similar opinions.
To summarise the whole essay, morality is complicated, and it cannot be explained in an easy way. People with different backgrounds and different mindsets have various opinions on what is moral, such as the contrast and connection between utilitarianism and deontology. Sometimes people share the same idea, such as the topic of eating meat, and sometimes they do not, like the trolley problem and self-driving cars. The interesting thing is, we do not talk about morality enough in this world. Most of the times, we are so caught up in our own business and trapped in subjective ideas, that we forget to communicate with others on what makes the world better, which is exactly morality. With more discussion on morality, we can discover more about ourselves and even this world. There are many that are worth talking about, such as why an action should be done, how can we make it more pleasant for every being and how should we rule over ourselves to become better people. The importance of morality is not only because of the present, but also the future. When our culture passes down generations, morality would keep reminding people, of the pleasure, the justice, the caring and loving, and so much more. With morality, maybe we can truly resurrect the beauty of human nature that has been long buried in this world full of rage and cruelty, and find true enlightenment.
Reference:
- Crockett, M. (2016, December 12). The trolley problem: would you kill one person to save many others? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/headquarters/2016/dec/12/the-trolley-problem-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-many-others
- Edmonds, D. (2018, November 14). Cars without drivers still need a moral compass. But what kind? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/14/cars-drivers-ethical-dilemmas-machines
- Gray, K., & Schein, C. (2012, September 18). Two Minds Vs. Two Philosophies: Mind Perception Defines Morality and Dissolves the Debate Between Deontology and Utilitarianism. Retrieved from https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/two-minds-vs-two-philosophies-mind-perception-defines-morality-and-oVHS7j7a6x?
- Johnson, N. (2015, July 20). Is there a moral case for meat? Grist. Retrieved from https://grist.org/food/is-there-a-moral-case-for-meat/
- Maxmen, A. (2018, October 24). Self-driving car dilemmas reveal the moral choices are not universal. Nature. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07135-0
- McGregor, J. (2018, August 7). What philosophers have to say about eating meat. The conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/what-philosophers-have-to-say-about-eating-meat-100444
- Panza, C., & Potthast, A. (2010). Ethics for Dummies. Chichester, UK: Wiley.