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: The Ethics of Consequences

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 well-being. 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 well-being, it can sometimes lead to the exclusion of minority interests. If the well-being of the majority is prioritised at the expense of smaller groups, utilitarian reasoning may justify policies that result in systemic marginalisation.

Deontology: The Ethics of Duty and Principles

Deontology, in contrast, 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 well-being 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 cooperation, is often framed as serving the “greater good” of a nation’s people. However, when this approach neglects the well-being 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.

South Africa’s Approach to Diversity and Minority Representation

South Africa, 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 South African census, the total population stands at approximately 62 million, comprising diverse ethnic groups:

• Black Africans: 81.4%, including Zulu (22.7%), Xhosa (16.3%), Sotho (12.1%), Tswana (10.3%), and other groups.
• Coloured community: 8.2%.
• White South Africans: 7.3%.
• Indian/Asian South Africans: 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. Let us consider for a moment the effect of race-based legislation in South Africa, where the majority often benefits at the cost of a minority.

The Role of Race-Based Legislation

A key issue in South Africa’s legal landscape is the persistence of race-based legislation. As of March 2025, the country has 142 operative laws that classify individuals based on race, with nine of these having been amended to remove racial distinctions (IRR, 2025). From 1910 to the present, South Africa has enacted 313 racial statutes, with approximately 37% introduced after 1994.

While these 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, in his opening address and political report of the ANC President cautioned 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 policymakers to ensure that no group is marginalised in the pursuit of national objectives.

A Path Forward

To achieve genuine diversity and inclusion, ethical governance must integrate both utilitarian and deontological perspectives. Policies should be evaluated not only for their overall societal benefits but also for their adherence to fundamental moral principles. By striking this balance, nations can move beyond exclusionary practices and build genuinely diverse and equitable societies.

Dr Paul Vorster is Head of Research Bureau at The Ethics Institute.