A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

This week we began delving into trying to define ethics.  Considering how much information is available discussing ethics, one would think it would be easy to clearly define it.  However, I found this was not the case because there is so much information on ethics and differing theories.  Two such examples of these theories are consequentialism and deontology.  Both theories look at our actions from an ethical perspective, whereas, “Consequentialism states that we should choose the available action with the best overall consequences, while deontology states that we should act in ways circumscribed by moral rules or rights, and that these rules or rights are at least partly independent of consequences” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 22). 

I felt I would agree with and relate the most with consequentialism because I tend to review all consequences associated with moral decisions I make in an effort to produce the best consequence.  I find myself asking questions such as “If I choose decision A, how will it affect this, this, and this…or if I choose decision B, how will it affect this, this, and this?”  My process of reviewing consequences is similar to LaFollette’s mention of how a good consequentialist theory should specify morally relevant consequences, how much weight they hold, and how they should be used in moral reasoning (p. 23).  I can understand and relate to these specifications when applying it to an ethical situation.  Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism and is rooted in the belief “the sole consequence we need to consider is happiness” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 26).  I can see where the level of happiness, as a result of making an ethical decision, can come into consideration.  However, I do not think an ethical decision should solely be based on happiness.  For example, if someone was faced with an ethical decision to make and half of those affected would be unhappy as a result of the decision, would the amount of happy people define whether or not the decision was ethical or unethical?  

Many critics of consequentialism side with the deontology theory in which they “contend there are strict moral limits on what we can do to others” where “consequentialists do not” and “not only that we do the right thing, but that we do it for the right reasons”  (LaFollete, 2007, p. 24).  They take an opposite approach of consequentialists in that they believe ethical action is done out of duty and not by consequences.  Deontology also differs from consequentialism in how each view rules applied to making ethical decisions.  More specifically, “the consequentialist thinks the “rules” are derivative.  They are defensible only if following them will bring about the best consequences.  In contrast, deontologists claim that our moral obligations – whatever they are – are defined by the rules, partly independently of consequences” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 24). I interpret this to simply mean deontologists do not allow any exceptions to the rules, where consequentialists do.    

  

I personally see an attraction and flaws with both theories.  I can relate and connect better with the consequentialist theory better by nature.  However, I do not agree that only consequences need to be considered in regards to ethics.  Conversely, I share a similar deontologist view that we should be ethical out of duty and moral obligation.  However, I think not allowing any exception to rules is a slippery slope.  Who determines all rules?  Who determines if all the rules are good and ethical?  Nobody has that right to make that determination in my opinion.  Perfection is not achievable by humans when it comes to being one-hundred percent ethical, no matter how hard we try.  I think by incorporating the best of both theories into ethical decision-making, we can come pretty close though.  Let us look at consequences, rules, morals, happiness, and duty in each ethical situation.  Because more times than not, each situation will be unique. 

References:

A framework for making ethical decisions.(n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions 

LaFollette, H.  (2007).  The practice of ethics.  Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

A634.1.5.RB - The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

How shall we live, as individuals in the face of decisions about right versus wrong? How shall we handle those occasions when none of the choices are attractive? Consider the following ethical dilemma and create a reflection blog regarding what you would do when having to make a choice in each train scenario. Justify your position and create a synopsis of your position and the implications. 

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing.  You are the switchperson.  By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing.  Will you throw the switch?

There are only two options in this case and neither is attractive.  That may be a gross understatement considering the outcomes of each decision.  Do I throw the switch to save five children but live with the fact I essentially murdered a child?  Or do I stand there and make a choice to do nothing and allow the five children to be killed?  As difficult as it may be, I would choose to throw the switch to save the five children.  This action would not come easily, but sacrificing one life to save five lives seems like the lesser of the two evils.  From an ethical standpoint, I do struggle with wondering what would give me the right to determine whose lives are spared and whose are not.  Nevertheless, for the sake of the exercise, a decision has to be made. 

Same scenario except:

You are standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the train and all the children will be saved. Will you push him? 

If I am willing to sacrifice a child to save five children, I would sacrifice an elderly man.  The difference in this scenario is obviously the age difference of the person being sacrificed, but also the manner in which I have to carry out the act.  The first scenario was throwing a switch and this scenario is physically pushing someone with the intent on killing them.  They are different methods, but they have the same result.  So throwing a switch or pushing someone will still make me equally guilty of killing them.  I could use the rationale that the elderly man has lived a long life and he does not have a lot of life to live, but my decision is based more on saving the most people possible.  And it also does help that those people are innocent children.  

Same scenario except:

The one child on the side track is your child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

I would unequivocally, without any doubt in my mind, not throw the switch to save the five children.  I still stand by my decisions made in the previous scenarios, but a variable which cannot be ignored was added to this scenario.  I have an undeniable love and bond with my child and would do anything to save his life.  If that meant sacrificing others in a situation where someone would be killed regardless of any decision, then so be it.  That may sound heartless and cruel, but I am just being brutally honest.  And I believe those with children can relate and understand, and maybe even those without children can try to understand.  The thought of being responsible for anyone’s death is difficult to comprehend and deciding who lives and dies weighs heavily on me even in these hypothetical scenarios. However, again for the sake of this exercise, decisions need to be made.