Abstract

This paper discusses the two primary groups of jurisprudential theories, Utilitarianism and Deontology, and attempts to show that there is a phenomenon that occurs when the results are opposite to what was expected. When this happens, the Utilitarian position prior to the results would become a Deontological position after the results, and vice versa i.e. the Deontological position prior to the results would become a Utilitarian position after the results, provided that the results are opposite to what was expected. This is The Direct Inverse Effect. This has been approached not from an entirely critical position, but from a position that attempts to encourage the reader to move away from confining oneself to either of these groupings. Since positions can only be held retrospectively, one should move away from holding these positions when deciding on how to act. Both of these theories have merit, and both can and should be used where applicable. This has been demonstrated by the use of opinions of philosophers and hypothetical scenarios. This shows that aligning to any jurisprudential grouping prior to the results is of no significance, and instead each decision should be made on a case by case basis utilising both Utilitarianism and Deontology.