Deontology Vs Utilitarianism

Ethics are a complicated subject. Everyone has their own way of thinking of ethics. People are ethical in similar and different ways. Some people may think the same way on subjects, like for example that it is ethically wrong to test on animals, while others may disagree, even on the same topic. There is no clear, black and white, right or wrong way to look at ethics. One may think people have varying degrees of ethics, which is true, but not one person really is more ethical than another given the interpretive and personal nature of classifying ethics and decisions. A person may think they are more ethical than another, or seem to be that way, but no matter how ethical you think you or another person is, at times you may still make unethical
The main categories of ethics in terms of the thought behind the decision are deontology and utilitarianism. Utilitarianism relies on the basis that we judge morality based on the consequences or results of these choices (Bowen, 2009, p. 4). Moral and ethical choices have good consequences and create happiness, whereas unethical or bad choices cause pain or suffering and cannot be justified or normalized. People who follow the utilitarianism approach want the greatest good for the greatest number of people. These methods of thinking can be applied in a way to both personal and professional ethics. Personal ethics and professional ethics are different. Personal ethics are the type of ethics a person has with and apply to situations in a more everyday life type of setting. There are 5 parts to personal ethics: discretion, duty, honesty, respect for others, and loyalty (Bowen, 2009, p. 3). Professional ethics are the ethics you have, and have to have, in your job setting. However, professional ethics in forensic science are considered a type of ethics called applied ethics (Bowen, 2009, p. 2). Applied ethics deal with obligations and allowances, particularly in professions. Deontology says that your actions occur out of obligation or duty and depend on the intent behind the action (Bowen, 2009, p. 6). In terms of forensic science, this applies to how the analyst or scientist is obligated to perform his or her job, including the limitations on what he or she is allowed to do or say. Forensic scientists have a duty to remain competent, be objective in selecting samples, examining said samples, and interpreting results, a duty to thoroughly analyze evidence and produce results that are within his or her expertise and the limits of the scientific technique, and finally the duty to communicate openly with others (Bowen, 2009, p