What is the difference between deontology and maximizing deontology?

Question

This is my understanding: Utility uses people as means to an end. So long as more people are benefited in the end, utility justifies any means.
Deontology puts more value in the individual. We must take just means in order to achieve just ends.
So, if we're maximizing deontology, would it just mean that we're doing whatever it takes to value the most amount of people- without devaluing the human worth of any individual?But you'd think that regular deontology would want to benefit the most people, as well.

Answer 1

If I may, I would start this dissertation by refuting your statement, "Deontology puts more value in the individual." If I were to make such a statement attempting to synopsize deontology, it would be, "Deontology attempts to enforce a low level of parsimony."

A key concept to your question is the notion of parsimony. What more or less adherence to deontology is most related to is parsimony. This is an intriguing and ubiquitous aspect of the everyday behavior experienced around the world. Please make yourself familiar with the meaning of this word (if you're not already) before proceeding.

Deontology is an appeal for LOW parsimony, meaning that it calls for a strict guideline in the development of a course of action for a given situation. You must resist the temptation to allow for the possibility that exceptions can come into play and modify the ultimate execution of duty which is called for in a given situation.

So, for example, let's say that I just laid-off 2,000 people who now must find other jobs...but my assessment is that I would not rehire any one of them again. LOW parsimony would require that I avoid the temptation to allow the many exceptions to that general rule to affect my duty-based deontological obligation to recommend that another company (which currently employs 1,200) NOT hire any of them when asked for a reference.

This is an example of how maximizing deontology can lead to the needs of the few outwaying the needs of the many if you take it to its logical (Kantian, dare I say) extremes.

Can you now see that the temptation to allow one's mind to rationalize a state of HIGH parsimony leads away from a strict adherence to the precepts of deontology? You'll start to think...hey, I really liked all those people, even though they didn't do a very good job. A bunch of them have got families...everybody deserves another chance...maybe they'll fit in better over there...yadda...yadda...yadda!!!

So, in this case, moving away from a strict adherence to deontology will benefit the most amount of people. The main point I'm trying to make is that the numbers of people on the thumbs up side versus the thumbs down side is not the issue at the heart of whether deontology is being adhered to more...or less. It's parsimony.

Utilitarianism comes into this comparison and contrast at an entirely different angle. It's somewhat obtuse to attempt to "graft" the human component aspect of utilitarianism onto deontology, where it is coldly irrelevant in the same regards.