A634.2.4.RB -
Theories of Ethics
In Chapter 2,
LaFollette (2007) discusses Consequentialism and Deontology. Discuss your
thoughts on these two theories.
Consequentialism is the idea that we are morally obligated
to act in ways that produce the best consequences. Deontology is the idea that
we are obligated to follow moral rules regardless of the consequences. (Lafollette,
2007) After reading the chapter twice, both of these philosophies seem to have
many holes and produce more questions than answers. If this was a world where
rules were rules and consequences didn’t matter, then we would all be blindly
doing and not doing things just because that’s what we’ve been told is right.
If that’s the case, then where did the rules come from? Ideally, society has
rules to keep people in check, to make sure that things run smoothly. But if consequences
were of no…consequence, then why have rules? It’s like the chicken or the egg…which
came first? It makes sense that rules were derived from bad decisions that had
terrible consequences. When roads were first started and cars started getting
faster, did speed limits come before speeding accidents or were there so many
accidents that those folks in charge felt there needed to be a rule to adhere
to in order to cut down on speeding accidents?
According to consequentialism, before making a choice on how
to behave, we are obligated to think through every possible scenario, or consequence,
weight them, and choose the option that has the best outcome for everyone. What
I don’t quite understand is what are the scenarios measured with? Who defines
what is bad, good, better, or best? What is the criteria upon which these
choices are weighed? Whose thumb are we using? What’s beneficial to me may have
no impact whatsoever on someone else. My good doesn’t equal your good every
time. I think we could both agree that some things are beautiful, but you may
like birds singing in the morning and it might drive me crazy because I work
third shift and am trying to sleep. This isn’t really saying that the actual singing
of the bird is good or bad overall.
I think the idea of trying to weigh the choices against a
possible outcome is smart, we shouldn’t jump into things without thinking them
through at least a little bit. When facing a moral decision, we should consider
available actions, trace the likely consequences of each for all affected, and
then select the one with the best overall consequences. (Lafollette, 2007) In
the example of the woman having to tell her father, who is already weak from
heart surgery, that his sister has died, no one knows what the best outcome is
truly for the father. Perhaps the sister had been suffering for years from a
terrible disease and her death was actually a relief because she wasn’t
suffering anymore? No matter what the woman decides to do, she has to make some
pretty big assumptions about what her father can and can’t handle.
Consequentialism on its own is definitely flawed, it is full of assumptions and
speculation and is just too subjective to be an all or nothing proposition.
Deontology is primarily a list of rules, and is familiar in
that most of us started out with basic rules in which to navigate life: “Don’t
eat mud.” “Say please and thank you.” “Don’t pick your nose.” These were all
helpful when we were young because our moral decisions at that time were of
little consequence. If I chose to ignore a rule and eat mud, I would most
likely end up with a tummy ache and a scolding. As adults, we still have those
rules but they have become nuanced and full of caveats. Our moral decisions are
based on the rules but also our values and belief system. If I apply for a job
that I’m not super interested in and actually get an interview, I’m denying
someone else, who may really want that job an opportunity to interview. To me
it’s just a practice interview, for someone else, it could be life changing. Deontologists
claim that our moral obligations – whatever they are – are defined by the
rules, partly independently of consequences. (Lafollette, 2007) If there are
rules that don’t pay any mind to consequences then there seems to be no risk to
not following the rules. When there is no consequence, the rules lose their
authority.
Together, or some hybrid of Consequentialism and Deontology
would be more impactful with making moral decisions. Then, there would be
rules, consequences that would give the rules heft, and possibly a systematic
way to weigh the options. (Although, the question of what these choices are
being measured to still troubles me.) Rules with consequences are like checks and balances...they keep us on the right track. According to the Philosophy Basics website,
Rule Consequentialism, is a theory that
moral behaviour involves following certain rules, but that those rules should
be chosen based on the consequences that the selection of those rules have. (Mastin,
n.d.) This form of consequentialism would sort of merge the two theories.
Either way, I still believe that choosing how to make a decision is less
important than the actual decision that is made. Choosing how to make a moral
decision is hypothetical and actually making that decision is an action. That
action moves us forward.
References:
Lafollette, H. (2007). The practice
of ethics. Blackwell Publishing.
Mastin, L. (n.d.). The Basics of
Philosophy. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_consequentialism.html
No comments:
Post a Comment