Utilitarianism vs Deontology

Hello,

'Morals: a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do'

I am just interested in peoples idea on Utilitarian mindsets vs. Deontologists.
I would like to hear which side people argue from and why.

For those unfamiliar, deontology is essentially the belief that there exists an underlying duty to all things, and an underlying good and wrong that exists independent of mankind.

Now, utilitarian is essentially the greatest good for the largest group of people, and the belief that to judge whether something is morally right or wrong, it is all dependent on the situation.

So, a few things to say-
I feel that if moral relatavism was the correct answer, then the idea of karma would cease to exist. Because the idea of karma relies on the idea that 'something' is always judging whether an act is right or wrong, and if wrong essentially punishing you and/or giving you an opportunity to make up for the previous act/intent/thought. Karma means action, so any act.

If you disagree with that ^ please explain why, cause I have been trying to think of a utilitarian/karma compatible idea.

Thank you,
-Seth

from my point of view, morals are an intellectual pursuit, survival is a physical.
physicality will demand changes that intellectualism never will... moral flexibility is a requirement of survival and adaptation.

a reply to: MyEyesSeeTooClear

Supply and demand could be likened to karma - the ideal situation is when supply equals demand - otherwise, there is excess demand or excess supply. You can say that demand and supply are polarities between cause and effect - when supply equals demand, there is an equilibrium of forces, much like when causes and effects have balanced themselves out when one is in a state of karmic balance.

Humans are social animals. In order for a social animal and the society in which it lives to survive there must be rules. What is "good" is what is beneficial to the survival of the society and thus the survival of the individual.

As societies change the needs of those societies change and so too their requirements though, taken to the most basic level, there is one rule; behave toward others as you would wish others to behave toward you. Trouble is, in general, human nature doesn't seem to get along well with that concept. Trouble is, individuals tend to perceive their personal interests more important than those of others. That probably comes from before we were actually what we call human.

The religious concept of karma is similar to the religious concept of heaven and hell. You better follow the rules because if you don't you'll end up paying for it later. They are societal constructs, nothing more. Or less. They are a human invention but we need them.

Great answers guys, I am actually in philosophy courses in college so I would love to present some of the ideas here if you don't mind.

a reply to: MyEyesSeeTooClear

im happy for you to use anything I post. if you want any more information you can PM me.

Largely I think the difference between Judaism and Christianity.

a reply to: Turq1

Hello Turq1,

Could you elaborate for me?