Then:
Deontology, it's an approach focusing on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, the motives, and not the goodness or badness of the consequences of those actions. Though many would agree that this viewpoint that this ethical belief wouldn't encourage what we perceive as the correct ethical behaviour in the human race. People murder because they can, it gives them a twisted sense of pleasure. They don't do it to follow a set of moral beliefs. If people were raised with the beliefs of deontology drilled into them from when they are infants wouldn't that better society. People wouldn't be as deceitful, as cunning and more prone to lying. Deontology is acting because it is your duty to do so, not because you want to, but because you must. People would tell the truth because that is their duty, people would help others because that is their duty. It is every person's duty to show kindness and compassion whether you want to or not. It is every single person's duty to never harm another living person without reason.
If everyone was acting in that particular way because it was their duty to do so that would be the downfall to individualism. It wouldn't do anything to increase happiness, or better the system we have now. It would just turn the entire human race into robots. Everyone would be living their lives without reason; feeding off of duty, running on nothing but silent exchanges and forgotten love.
Utilitarianism states that the action is right if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Happiness for Utilitarianism is pleasure and the absence of pain. This may sound more free, a better and ideal set of morals to live by. It would be but if someone were to go and murder someone because it causes a sense of profound happiness would this be morally right? If the amount of happiness that is produced is more than displeasure then yes it would be morally ok. Although if governments were run based on utilitarianism of public opinion instead of a group of politicians who cheated their way into power through manipulation and lies, would that have any more benefits to society. We do live in a democratic society where the people vote and elect leaders, we are run by these politicians. Though we are able to choose our leaders we can't have say in how the country is run, we don't get to have a say in the choices that are made. We don't get the choice of happiness, although this may sound the easiest option to live in a society where utilitarianism is a social norm, this would enable too much free will. People could decide that not going to school would bring about more happiness; that murdering that one person would give a lot of profound joy.
There is no real way to measure happiness so who's to say that murder was or wasn't ok because you don't know how much happiness or misery it causes. How far do you measure, is it just the one person, or the entire family. It is an ethical dilemma that can't be measured, it's something that society can't control and in the end you will still have those few that will govern over the rest; the people that would judge happiness and misery.
You can't say exactly what your moral beliefs are. No one wakes up one day and decides that they are one hundred percent true to deontology or they will live their lives based on utilitarianism. Each one of these beliefs is flawed. We can't live by one or the other, if we did our society would be less free. Each person would follow one set of belief and that would rule. Our current system would crash and burn.
Ethically the best way for our society to truly work is individualism. Everyone is born with instinct. Through education it is supressed, we are constantly fed society's ideas of the correct social norm. What society believes to be the right thing, it may not be the right thing, but it's what we are taught. From birth to the end of life everyone is taught what is right and what is left. We are all taught the same thing, like it was all written down in a book. What is right and what is wrong. If you don't follow society's ordeal ethic behaviours you are a psychopath, a danger to society. Maybe that's how murders are born, how 'psychopaths' and 'insanity' is formed.
Ethics aren't recognised as free will any more, people like to believe it's their own idea of what's right and what's wrong, but each individual person all steer towards the same ideologies. We are told what is right and what we are told is law, even though you don't see it, it is there. Individuals who don't agree with society, who want to be different, who try to reach out, follow their instincts and find something new only to be cut down by society and moulded into something else. Turning a shining star into a dull orb, barely glowing with what is life, only living out the rest of its days following what society says to do.
– Sam Winchester, extract from final report
*.*.*.*
Now:
The tabloids called him the most notorious killer of the decade, the body count was long past the double digits, each cadaver expertly carved into, bled out and killed. That was his signature, the poetry, the intricate artistic carvings that marked each of his victims as his own. Each corpse had its own carving, an individual art work. The sliced skin formed intricate patterns that wove into each other, creating images, scenes of beauty and delicacy.
It was an honourable way to die, in the hands of an artist where his victims were like a canvas and his knife was his paint brush. Each stroke was masterful, precise. It showed the power the artist had over each life he stole, the power he had. The world was at his fingertips, nothing could stop him now. He thought he was a god and he set out to prove that the world was his canvas and he was the artist.
The first kill barely made the paper, just another nobody found in a ditch but it wasn't the death of a poor soul that interested the papers it was the body. The slashes that covered each corpse seeming random were frantically made; it wasn't until after the body was removed and cleaned the pattern emerged. A crude engraving of a flower was carved into the body, each slash, each cut lining up to produce a rose. It was sick in a way, laying the body to rest with a flower, like in a grave. No one knew if it was guilt or mockery. All they knew was another corpse will pile on top of this one, and another, and another. Nothing was going to stop him, not until the artist was satisfied with his work. But when are they ever.
They never were able to catch him, for years no one knew his face or name, or if it was just one man; he was a ghost in the public's eye. Just an artist, painting his pictures, letting the public know what he could do, and that he was never going to stop. Each kill, each new painting brought more and more attention, it because the biggest attraction on the news, the cover on every newspaper. The artist strikes again. It was the headliner that captivated people, the most notorious killer of the decade makes another kill, and there was nothing people wanted more. In everyone's own dark and twisted way they awaited the next kill, society found something they liked and they were going to hold onto it as long as they could until they had to return to their own mundane lives.
That's how it worked for a year, the body count was halfway to triple digits and the public kept screaming for more. Everyone wanted to know the face behind the artworks, who was crafting each masterpiece. It was a year before the media was able to show the pubic those warm brown eyes and dimpled smile, the innocence behind each of the killings.
The next day, every single newspaper, every single news station, radio was saying what everyone was waiting to hear. Sam Winchester, the name behind the artist.
TBC~
Reviews would be amazing. Sorry for the boring ethical debate, don't worry. I will be delving straight into story soon.