Deontology is dominantly built on the notion of duty, which is central in determining a set of principles and rules based on moral law derived from reason. Nagel draws heavily upon the constricting nature of the deontological system, operating under “personal demands governing one’s relations with others” rather than “impersonal claims derived from the interest of others” (Nagel, “Ethics” in The View From Nowhere, 1986, Page 176). This form of thinking challenges Hume by creating boundaries by which moral laws should be followed and displace human impulses “which opposes our passion” (Hume, “A Treatise of Human Nature,”1896, Page 217). This allows moral choices to be made as an object of “common moral intuition” (Nagel, “Ethics” in The View …show more content…
This becomes a direct contrast to consequentialism, which allows the individual to determine whether “one state of affairs or outcome was impersonally better than another” (Nagel, “Ethics” in The View From Nowhere, 1986, Page 174) based on the consequences. In an essence, the determinant of the morality of an action in consequentialism stems from the end justifying the means. This is contradictory to deontology where moral actions have particular rules which have a “full force against you doing something – not just against it happening” (Nagel, “Ethics” in The View From Nowhere, 1986, Page 177), such as breaking a promise. This is separate from any consequence which following these deontological rules may …show more content…
Contrary to the popular belief that circulates in favor of human beings being rational creatures, we are a species prone to both emotional moral judgments and rational reasoning. However, our emotions are dominant in governing our method of reasoning. Emotions can be evaluated by rationality, and it is actually emotion that leads us to label moral judgments as “right” or “wrong,” regardless of which ethical theories one chooses to believe in. In a sense, emotion is the forefront of moral judgment while reasoning is like the filter. The answer for right and wrong is not as black and white as reason over emotion. It is about understanding the value of a moral judgment and knowing how to respond to it while taking into consideration both reason and emotion. It is reasonable to think that ethics has been in search for a formula that can explain our seemingly chaotic world and a presumably emotionally unstable human nature, in which we are emotionally unstable inhabitants; but it cannot be as simple as this. We require a theory that is more malleable, and flexible enough to deal adequately with the complexity of moral life as emotions are connected to reason. Understanding that our emotions often counter reason, and the deontological constraints that exist to maintain collective philosophy, is the