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.
No comments:
Post a Comment