Utilitarianism: Deontology Or Duty Ethics

Deontology or duty ethics exist to oppose the idea of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is basically approaches morality that no moral act or rule is intrinsically right or wrong but the rightness or wrongness of an act matters only on what a person finds attractive, what is appropriate to serve as enjoyment or should we say, non-moral good. For utilitarianism, morality is only a matter of the non-moral good produced that results from moral actions and rules, and moral duty is instrumental, not intrinsic. And thus, morality is a means to some other end, it is not an end in itself. To thoroughly explain what consequentialism is, it divides right from wrong entirely based on the consequences of an action, in other words, the end (goal) justifies
Deontology is the position that the consequences don’t really matter because moral judgement is contained in the act and act alone. Duty ethics has developed three important components. Those components state that one, duty should be done for duty’s sake. Two, humans should be treated as objects of intrinsic moral value, and by it statement itself, humans should be seen as ends(goals) that they embody to themselves and never to view them as a mere means to some other end, not to treat them as a bridge to satisfy your own desires. Lastly, a moral principle is a categorical imperative, the universalizability principle. That is for every action that a person does, it should be applicable for everyone who is in the same moral scenario. Under this form of ethics, you can’t justify an action by showing that it produced good consequences, which is why duty ethics is sometimes called “non-consequentialist”. Duty ethics portrays that some acts are right or wrong because of what they are, and people have duty to act accordingly, regardless of the good or bad consequences that the act may produce (Aquileana,