PAUL VORSTER: Blend utilitarian pragmatism with deontological commitment to principle

At the recent commemoration of the Sharpeville massacre, EFF leader Julius Malema reignited fierce public debate by chanting “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer” — a slogan widely condemned for inciting racial animosity. Analysts have criticised both Malema and the EFF for perpetuating this anti-apartheid chant in a democratic SA that is still striving to heal from its divided past. 

This incident, while disturbing, is not isolated. It highlights a broader ethical dilemma at the heart of contemporary governance: the tension between majority rule and the protection of minority rights. As SA grapples with competing demands for historical redress and national unity, the re-interpretation of diversity — once seen as a celebration of inclusion — is at risk of becoming a tool for division. 

For much of human history societies have aspired to embrace diversity, viewing it as a pathway to inclusion and equality. However, in contemporary governance and policy diversity is being increasingly reinterpreted in ways that risk reinforcing the dominance of a single group. While initially intended to promote fairness, some modern applications of diversity and inclusion strategies inadvertently marginalise ethnic, racial and cultural minorities. This shift raises significant ethical questions, particularly when viewed through the lenses of utilitarianism and deontology. 

Understanding utilitarianism and deontology 

Ethical decision-making often relies on philosophical frameworks that guide moral reasoning. Two key perspectives — utilitarianism and deontology — offer distinct approaches to evaluating right and wrong. 

Utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory, assesses the morality of actions based on their outcomes. Developed by philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism holds that the best action is the one that maximises overall happiness or wellbeing. This approach prioritises the “greatest good for the greatest number,” making it an appealing framework for policy decisions and governance. 

However, while utilitarianism aims to promote overall wellbeing, it can sometimes lead to the exclusion of minority interests. If the wellbeing of the majority is prioritised at the expense of smaller groups, utilitarian reasoning may justify policies that result in systemic marginalisation. 

In contrast, deontology is a duty-based ethical framework developed by Immanuel Kant. Unlike utilitarianism, which focuses on outcomes, deontology asserts that certain moral principles must be upheld regardless of consequences. Actions are considered morally right or wrong based on adherence to fundamental duties such as fairness, justice and respect for human dignity. 

A deontological approach to governance ensures that ethical principles are not compromised in pursuit of majority interests. This framework prioritises the protection of minority rights, even when doing so does not align with broader utilitarian goals. 

By understanding these two ethical perspectives we can critically evaluate policies and societal trends that claim to promote diversity and inclusion but may, in practice, prioritise majority rule over minority representation. 

The ethical implications of utilitarianism 

While utilitarianism provides a practical framework for decision-making, its application can sometimes justify policies that prioritise the majority at the expense of minorities. This can lead to a selective form of utilitarianism, where only the wellbeing of the dominant group is considered, and marginalised groups are excluded from the moral calculus. 

A notable example of this dynamic is the rise of isolationist policies in various nations. Isolationism, which prioritises domestic interests over global co-operation, is often framed as serving the “greater good” of a nation’s people.  

However, when this approach neglects the wellbeing of minority communities it risks perpetuating exclusion rather than fostering genuine national unity. This ethical dilemma demonstrates how an overemphasis on majority rule can lead to unintended social fragmentation. 

History provides several examples where utilitarian reasoning — when applied without safeguards — has justified the marginalisation of minority groups, sometimes with devastating consequences. For instance, the Armenian genocide (1915–1917) saw the Ottoman Empire target the Armenian population under the justification of national security.

Similarly, the Rwandan genocide (1994) was framed as a necessity for national unity, leading to the mass killing of Tutsis by the Hutu-led government. More recently, China’s policies toward the Uyghur Muslim population have been justified on the grounds of national stability and security, despite widespread international concern about human rights violations.

These cases underscore the risks of pursuing majority interests without ethical constraints that protect minority rights. 

SA’s approach to diversity and minority representation 

SA, with its complex history of racial exclusion and reconciliation, provides a unique case study in the challenges of fostering true inclusivity. While the country has made significant strides in addressing historical injustices, contemporary policy discussions suggest a shift towards an exclusivist interpretation of diversity. The emphasis on African nationalism, while understandable in the context of historical redress, raises questions about the inclusion of smaller minority groups. 

According to the 2022 SA census, the total population stands at about 62-million, comprising diverse ethnic groups: 

• Black:  81.4%, including Zulu (22.7%), Xhosa (16.3%), Sotho (12.1%), Tswana (10.3%), and other groups. 
• Coloured (mixed race): 8.2%. 
• White: 7.3%. 
• Indian/Asian:  2.7%. 
• Other:  0.4%.  

While much attention has been given to discussions surrounding the marginalisation of Afrikaners, other smaller communities also face challenges in representation and policy consideration. Groups such as the Venda (2.2%), Ndebele (2.1%), Swazi (2.6%), Tsonga (4.4%), and Khoisan-related communities often find themselves overshadowed in broader national discourse.

Consider for a moment the effect of race-based legislation in SA, where the majority often benefits at the expense of a minority. 

The role of race-based legislation 

A key issue in SA’s legal landscape is the persistence of race-based legislation. According to the Institute of Race Relations, as of  March the country has 142 operative laws that classify individuals based on race, with nine laws having been amended to remove racial distinctions. From 1910 to the present, SA has enacted 313 racial statutes, with about 37% introduced after 1994. 

While the latter laws were originally designed to address past inequalities, they also present ethical dilemmas. Some analysts argue that they reinforce racial divisions, rather than fostering true social cohesion.

Former president Thabo Mbeki has warned against policies that risk entrenching racial identities at the expense of national unity. He advocates for approaches that promote inclusive empowerment while avoiding the pitfalls of perpetual racial categorisation. 

Why deontology is essential 

While utilitarianism provides a framework for assessing policies based on outcomes, it often lacks the moral safeguards necessary to protect minority rights. This is where deontological ethics — focused on duty, principles and inherent moral obligations — plays a crucial role. 

Unlike utilitarianism, which weighs benefits against harms, deontology asserts that certain ethical duties should not be violated regardless of the consequences. In the context of governance, this means upholding principles of fairness, dignity and equal treatment, even when doing so does not align with the interests of the majority. Applying a deontological perspective requires policy-makers to ensure that no group is marginalised in the pursuit of national objectives. 

Ethical governance in diverse societies must blend utilitarian pragmatism with deontological commitment to principle. Policies should be crafted to promote collective wellbeing without compromising the dignity and rights of any group. 

True diversity means recognising all communities — not only in celebration but in concern. The Sharpeville commemoration should have been a moment of reflection on state violence and social unity. Instead, it became a flashpoint for rhetoric that divided rather than healed. 

SA’s democracy is strong enough to honour its past without being bound by it. But that requires a commitment to ethical leadership that sees beyond the crowd — and protects even the smallest voice in the room. 

• Dr Vorster, an industrial organisational psychologist, is head of the research bureau at The Ethics Institute.