Maggie asked:

Is there anything wrong with parents deciding that their children have the same characteristics that
they have judging by a utilitarian or deontology approach?

Do utilitarianism and deontology lead to different ethical conclusions about the issue?

What is the difference between utilitarianism and deontology?

============

I think it would be easier if I were to answer your questions in reverse order and begin with the
difference between utilitarian and deontological ethical theories. What they share in common is that
they both attempt to provide answers to moral dilemmas. Where they differ, however, is in the method
used to answer these dilemmas. Utilitarianism is the name given to the ethical theory proposed by
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 19th century. It proposes that an action can be judged to
be morally correct (i.e. the right thing to do) if, and only if, that action produces more happiness or
pleasure than any alternative course of action that may be performed. A "good" action is simply one
that brings about the greatest total happiness. This is described as the Principle of Utilityor the
Greatest Happiness Principle.When faced with a moral dilemma the utilitarian a) examines all the
possible options available to her, b) calculates the total happiness produced by each possibility, and
c) acts in the way which produces the greatest total amount of happiness.

Because utilitarianism looks to the consequences of any action that is performed it is often referred to
as a consequentialisttheory. It might help if you took some time to think of how a utilitarian might
answer the following moral dilemmas:

*A judge deciding whether or not to sentence a convicted murderer to death

*A student deciding whether or not to lie to her tutor and claim that her assignment was really eaten
by a dog

Deontological ethics, on the other hand, approaches moral decisions from a very different
perspective. Deontological ethics, sometimes called duty based ethics, state that humans have a duty
(or duties) to act in certain ways,regardless of the amount of happiness produced or indeed any other
consequences. For example, it may be argued that humans have a duty to always tell the truth. In this
situation, lying would always be an unacceptable course of action, even if it made billions of people
happy.The duty overrides any possible consequences. The main problem faced by proponents of
deontological ethics is identifying which duties are those we should follow, and then attempting to
justify them. Some Christians, for example, may choose to look to the Bible and use the Ten
Commandments. Other thinkers may attempt to prove that certain duties exist by using their reason
alone, as did the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

First two questions now!

It is entirely possible that deontological and utilitarian thinkers may agree on what is the right way to
act regarding the issue you describe — parents passing on their characteristics to their children. But it
is equally possible that they will disagree.

The utilitarian thinker would simply have to follow the procedure outlined above and calculate the
amount of happiness produced by such an act. For example, would the parents' happiness increase?
Would the children be happier inheriting their parents' characteristics than they would have been
without them? Would society as a whole feel happier if parents were allowed to "interfere" with the
natural process of reproduction? Each case would have to be viewed individually and if, in some
situations, it could be safely predicted that parents passing on their characteristics to their children
would increase the total amount of happiness, then it would be the moral thing to do.

The deontological thinker would first have to decide which duties were regarded as correct and make
their decision on the basis of this. For example, the deontological thinker may be able to claim that
humans have a duty not to interfere with natural processes (because, perhaps, its against the will of
God) and conclude that it would be immoral for parents to pass their characteristics on to their
children. It should be clear now that if the deontological thinker decided to claim that a different duty
was important, a different conclusion may be reached. The important point to remember is that
deontological thinkers will not look to the consequences of an action in order to determine its
worthiness.

Simon Drew