PHI-200 Ethics and Society
Short Essay / Response Paper – Utilitarianism vs. Deontology
Assignment Overview
This short essay assesses your ability to critically compare two major moral theories—utilitarianism and deontology—and apply them to a contemporary ethical issue. You will evaluate how each framework approaches moral reasoning, decision-making, and the justification of actions in society today. This task develops ethical literacy, analytical reasoning, and written communication skills in alignment with SNHU’s Philosophy program outcomes.
Context and Purpose
Ethical theories shape the way individuals and societies evaluate right and wrong. Both utilitarianism and deontology remain influential in modern moral debates, including those concerning technology, public policy, and social justice. This assignment invites you to demonstrate your understanding of both theories and articulate a reasoned position on their comparative strengths and weaknesses.
Task Instructions
- Length: 750–1,000 words, excluding references.
- Format: APA 7th edition; double-spaced; 12-point Times New Roman; 1-inch margins.
- Sources: Minimum of three scholarly or peer-reviewed sources, including course readings.
- Task:
- Define and explain utilitarianism and deontology, citing at least one philosopher for each (e.g., Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill for utilitarianism; Immanuel Kant for deontology).
- Identify a current ethical issue (for example, AI decision-making, euthanasia, environmental ethics, or digital privacy).
- Apply both utilitarian and deontological perspectives to this issue, comparing how each theory would guide moral reasoning.
- Evaluate which theory provides a stronger moral justification and explain why, using clear evidence and logical reasoning.
- Submission: Upload to Brightspace by the end of Week 4.
Assessment Criteria / Grading Rubric
| Criteria | Exemplary (100–90%) | Proficient (89–80%) | Needs Improvement (79–70%) | Not Evident (<70%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehension of Ethical Theories (25%) | Clearly and accurately defines utilitarianism and deontology; demonstrates deep understanding of key principles and thinkers. | Accurately explains both theories with minor errors or omissions. | Explains only one theory in depth or with limited accuracy. | Fails to accurately define or explain either theory. |
| Application to Ethical Issue (25%) | Applies both theories insightfully to a relevant, well-defined issue with strong examples. | Applies both theories appropriately but without sufficient depth or evidence. | Applies one theory incorrectly or superficially. | No meaningful application of theory to an ethical issue. |
| Critical Evaluation and Reasoned Argument (25%) | Develops a balanced, persuasive comparison supported by logic and scholarship. | Offers a clear comparison with some gaps in depth or evidence. | Provides limited evaluation; argument lacks clarity or depth. | No evaluative argument presented. |
| Organization, Clarity, and APA Formatting (15%) | Essay is coherent, well-structured, and consistently follows APA 7th edition. | Mostly organized and formatted correctly with minor APA errors. | Shows limited organization; APA style inconsistently applied. | Poor organization and failure to meet APA standards. |
| Use of Sources and Evidence (10%) | Integrates credible sources seamlessly with proper in-text citations and reference list. | Uses appropriate sources but with minor citation errors or limited integration. | Relies on non-scholarly sources or inadequate citation practice. | No credible sources or citations provided. |
Utilitarianism prioritizes outcomes, holding that moral actions maximize overall happiness or minimize suffering. Deontology, conversely, evaluates actions by their adherence to moral duty rather than results. In debates on artificial intelligence, a utilitarian may justify algorithmic efficiency if it benefits the majority, while a deontologist would challenge actions that compromise human autonomy or violate moral law regardless of consequences.
References (APA 7th Edition)
- Driver, J. (2019). Ethics: The Fundamentals (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119207428
- Korsgaard, C. M. (2020). Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198753858.001.0001
- Sandel, M. J. (2018). Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674036130
- Smart, J. J. C., & Williams, B. (2020). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167636
- Wood, A. W. (2018). Kantian Ethics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108568507
Key Guarantees
- ✓ Plagiarism-Free
- ✓ On-Time Delivery
- ✓ Student-Based Prices
- ✓ Human Written Papers