Both Consequentialism and
Deontology theories offer insight into the ways that we make ethical choices
and the basis for which the choices are determined. “Consequentialist claim that we are morally
obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences”, essentially
following the idea that the ends justify the means. (LaFollette, 2007) While this seems like a simple concept, there
are a variety of steps that go into determining what consequences should be
considered when making a decision.
Consequentialist consider the interest of all affected, which
consequences are morally relevant, how much weight we should give them, and how
precisely we should use them in moral reasoning. (Lafollette, 2007) From what I understand, an
example that really helped describe the basic thinking of a Consequentialist is
considering a doctor who killed a patient for their organs. While the consequences seem to be the best,
it is immorally wrong. A
consequentialist in this situation would first determine the consequences of
the situation, then determine how much weight we should apply to those
consequences, and finally determine how precisely we should use them in moral
reasoning.
When considering the steps a
consequentialist takes to determine the best consequence, it is interesting to
put into perspective because it is so formulaic. I think the theory of Consequentialism could
be beneficial in certain situations where the level of ‘danger’ or
‘unhappiness’ is less. For instance, at
my old job at Fruit of the Loom, I was a member of the safety team. Because I also worked as an artist for the
company, we had specialized desks that were higher than a normal cubical
desk. The drafting desks required taller
chairs. While the chairs did their job,
they were causing a lot of discomfort for the employees in the area. Since I was a member of both sides I was able
to hear both rationales for the reason to upgrade the chairs. The safety team seemed to work in a manner
that followed consequentialism. They
would consider the consequences, determine which, out of those consequences was
relevant, and then they would consider who is affected by the improvements of the
chair.
In situation’s such as the chair
example, where the overall dilemma is not life threatening or incredibly
crucial to the overall duties and responsibilities of the team members, I find
that consequentialism can be beneficial.
The “maximization of the good” does not affect either participant in a
negative way. (Brown, 2011) In the
situation with the chair, both the employees and the members of the safety team
share a similar goal in wanting to maximize the good. While the old chairs were ‘good’, the new
chairs were ‘better’, in turn creating a better overall consequence. The ergonomics improved for the employees,
the happiness level improved, and the safety team was able to gain more insight
into the various needs of the staff. In
this situation, there were no moral issues that anyone disagreed with, so in
this instance, and with the lack of weight placed on all the consequences
involved, I feel that consequentialism can be beneficial. When people’s moral beliefs and rules are
affected, I feel that is where it may go to far in its simplicity.
Deontology, on the other
hand, “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)
Philosopher Immanuel Kant stated that deontologist believe there are
strict moral limits on what we can do to others, the ends do not justify the
means. (LaFollette, 2007) Kant described deontology as a basis of the
actions that we follow. He believed that
there is a need for moral principles to be universal and that we should
understand the distinctions between things and persons, and emphasize the
necessity of respect for people. (Kay, 1997) Essentially, we should understand
that moral rules are in place for a reason and should be followed even when the
rules do not offer the best consequence possible. (LaFollette, 2007) While, I agree with the theory and consider
the benefits of others to be a crucial component to our moral rules, I find it
difficult to know how we all determine a set of universal moral rules.
While deontology doesn’t
necessarily look at what is the best consequence, potentially causing
disagreements amongst people, the emphasis is on respect for each person and
their moral rights. (Kay, 1997) I feel that we should not make black and white
decisions on moral decisions. In my
opinion, a lie as a an action is wrong, yes, but the reason’s behind the action
should be considered. Lying to prevent
another person from being negatively affected is an understandable rule to
break.
References
Brown, C. (2011). Consequentialize
This. Ethics, 121(4), 749-771. Retrieved April 3, 2015, from JSTOR.
Kay, C. (1997, January 1). Notes on
Deontology. Retrieved April 4, 2015.
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of
ethics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Pub.
No comments:
Post a Comment