Final answer:
Kantian duty ethics contends that telling the truth is a categorical imperative and should be followed regardless of consequences, while utilitarianism would weigh the outcome of such disclosure on overall happiness to guide the decision.
Step-by-step explanation:
When considering whether to disclose a child's homosexuality to a conservative parent, there are two major ethical frameworks that could guide the decision: Kantian duty ethics and utilitarianism. According to Kantian duty ethics, one has the moral obligation to tell the truth, following what is called the categorical imperative. Kant postulated that moral rules are absolute and must be followed without exception; thus, from this perspective, revealing the truth would be the ethical action, irrespective of the consequences. On the other hand, utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of an action. An Act Utilitarian might argue that if the truth disclosure causes more harm and distress than good, keeping the information private could be justified, as it maximizes overall happiness and minimizes pain.
Deontological ethics emphasize moral rules and duties, while utilitarian approaches consider the outcomes and collective happiness resulting from actions. Factors like societal biases and personal repercussions add complexity to the decision. It is also important to consider the implications of both indirect and direct harm that may result from either revealing or concealing the truth. Philosophers like Sir William David Ross suggest that moral decisions are not always clear-cut, acknowledging the presence of competing duties and prima facie duties that can vary in weight depending on the situation. They advocate considering multiple moral principles and the specific context when determining the right course of action, which can be particularly relevant in situations where personal identity and societal norms intersect.