Differences between Utilitarianism and Deontological

    Utilitarianism (also called consequentialism) is a moral theory developed and refined in the modern world in the writings of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). There are several varieties of utilitarianism. But basically, a utilitarian approach to morality implies that no moral act (e.g., an act of stealing) or rule (e.g., “Keep your promises”) is intrinsically right or wrong. Rather, the rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is solely a matter of the overall no moral good (e.g., pleasure, happiness, health, knowledge, or satisfaction of individual desire) produced in the consequences of doing that act or following that rule. In sum, according to utilitarianism, morality is a matter of the no moral good produced that results from moral actions and rules, and moral duty is instrumental, not intrinsic. Morality is a means to some other end; it is in no way an end in itself. One main problem is that utilitarianism, if adopted, justifies as morally appropriate things that are clearly immoral.  (J.P.Moreland 2009).

      Utilitarianism can be used to identify the punishing an innocent victim or small group of people if this act can produce big consequences. Many comments about the utilitarianism have come from public and most of them believe in deontology concept more suitable promote to the public. Utilitarian think that criminals also can be reformed and not only punished to criminals, they also have the change to reformed their attitude and behaviour. Utilitarianism also against ruthless to animals. Supporter of utilitarianism believe that utilitarianism counts equally to every one happiness. Advantages of utilitarianism are utilitarianism fits with the idea thatthe consequences of our actions matter. Beside of this, it gives a guide when there is no time to assess the pros and cons of a situation also treat everyone as equal no one has special treatment. For disadvantages of utilitarianism are it is only consists of counts happiness, treat people as means to an end. It may cause people do the right things but for the wrong reasons doing it. It doesn't care who does something as long as the consequences occur.

Deontological ethnics is requires us to all the people as ends, but not as mean that to ends to the people. According to Wikipedia, deontology "judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules" and it was first termed in 1930 by C. D. Broad when he wrote his book, Five Types of Ethical Theory (italicize or underline book name). In essence, people who follow deontological ethics "bind" themselves to duties and obligations to certain people and the law. Since deontologists "bind" themselves to their duties, the ethics system is often regarded as agent-relative morality because the person is more concerned with how an act that satisfies or breaks a duty affects them. A common example that always used as the deontology example is a deontologist would let a stranger die, better than to kill other stranger that he or she did not wish to kill stranger again. Duties for deontological consist to three main parts which is obligation, commitments and also responsibilities.

     For deontological theories, agent-centered, which means there are some people have their special permissions and obligation based on their duties and also agency, example like parents should provide the food supplier to all their children. Basically morality is more close to personal sides, and encouraged favor for family member and friends. Anyone should holding he or she own “agency” to avoid of moral taint to their behaviour. According to Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative: Our primary duty is to act only in those ways in which the maxim of our acts could be made a universal law. The advantages of deontological ethics is People can have strong satisfy with their obligation is because deontological ethics make people to stay very union and they would present an act in practically in their obligation. Not only for that, those people who have strong deontological ethics often treat their family members and friends with high level of deontological and think that this is the mission to them to teach the deontological to other peoples. The deontological ethics also provides a stage for the followers to be”supererogatory”.In ethics point of view that “supererogatory” is follows an act that is good but not necessary morally required to be done at all the time. For an example is if a crazy man to coerce a women in a shopping mall and said if the women dies, then he will surrender to the polices. The young man who believes in deontology ethics would volunteer to coerce by the crazy man and willing to satisfice his life because he believes that it is his obligation to protect the life of the women who is coerce by the crazy man, and many peoples would view his act as “supererogatory” it is because he is exceeding his position to protect the women. For disadvantages of deontological ethics is that deontologist may not transgress a mission to avoid some violations caused by other people, this is usually called as the “paradox of deontological constraints”. It will cause the “seeming irrationality of our duties and permissions to make the level of morally worse than when we followed it.If we are not manage the situation well, it will lead to disastrous consequences and unpredictable. For a good example a deontologist would not kill the murder and knowing the murder will continue to kill other people, many victims will kill by the murder and many family will lost their family members when the deontologist not to kill the murder. For some situation, the deontologist does not really have the stand or good reason to follow the deontology. For an example, a secretary of a company will make her duty to go to work on time, but why she made it because her job often changes. Ordinary people may think that not going to work late in order to prevent the bad image to the company, but they probably wouldn't make it a duty.Furthermore,the deontological system does not implement  a better way of link with situations when occur duties conflict with each other. Back to the secretary above, if she always late to work, her performance will be worse and she cannot done her job task on time.
     For my point of view, I think that utilitarianism focus the concept of the end of the event can justifies the means, while from deontology side stick to the concept of the end for the event does not justify the means. I believe that utilitarianism is more consider the consequence-oriented philosophy compare to deontology. Both of utilitarianism and deontology has advantages and disadvantages, so we need to consider which one is more useful or be a reference when we facing some problem occur.