Recently I began my first ethics class and while I may have
only dipped my toe into the ocean of theories that are available in order to
critically think about and examine practical issues, I am still unsure which
one I most closely follow. Two of the major theories are Deontology and
Consequentialism. I am almost fearful that I am not consistent in my views, in
fact, I am confident enough in myself and my decision-making to acknowledge
that I am not consistent… and I might be okay with that. While I think there is
a rather lazy convenience in approaching moral theories like a pick and choose
buffet, another way to view it is that while no theory is perfect one can
sidestep the flaws and create their own best of album of ethical
decision-making. I think that each theory has really important ideas that I
have unknowingly incorporated into my life and I would like to put both
theories in the hot seat for a moment to look at the best and worst of what
they have to offer.
Deontology: The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Deontology is concerned with following moral rules and
principles regardless if the end consequence is not that great. For example, if
I threw a baseball and it went through my neighbor’s window, I should tell the
truth that it was me regardless of the trouble that I would get into both
financially and the standing relationship that I may end up damaging. If
telling the truth is a moral obligation, and deontology says that it is, it
must be done no matter what. Another interesting way to look at this is being a
Good Samaritan. If I came upon someone who was severely injured I should help
them. If I am the only one around, I am better than nothing. I do not have
medical training, unless you count knowing how to dilate pupils, which we aren’t.
My obligation would be to try to help in any way I can. If a car was coming and
I tried to move the person out of the road and paralyzed them accidentally because
I moved them, is not really an important factor in deontology. I had a good
intention to help and do the best I could. It is unfortunate that the end
result is as it was. If life was looked at in timeline format, what we did in
the beginning and then in the middle are very important, no matter how it turns
out.
Consequentialism: If it doesn’t work out, then you are just
a jerk
Consequentialists would not agree that it is what we do in
the beginning or the middle, but that we get to the best overall end result
that benefits the most people possible. I think Jack Bauer and 24 is a great
example. In order to save the world, so what if he has to murder at least 273
people (after the premiere of 24: Live Another Day), most of who are threatening the peace
and civility that society tends to enjoy. When it comes to saving the world, I
could get behind consequentialism! However, if I am going about my everyday
ho-hum routine and there is a turtle, kitten, puppy etc. or all three in the road and I intend
to preserve an animal’s life and I swerve… as long as my intended outcome to
save the animal is completed then I have carried out my intention. It gets a
little messy when I think about what if I wreck… into a tree… and kill myself…
or other people… I still saved that cute little animal. This is where
consequentialism and utilitarianism tend to converge; did I serve the greatest
good? Did I actually produce the best end result? For the turtle I did. Here is
where I start pointing fingers a little bit. If Jack Bauer killed all of those
people and then failed to save the day, then he has just killed a bunch of
people. How does he explain himself? There is no end result to justify those
actions according to a consequentialist outlook. If you do whatever it takes
and fail, then you are just a jerk. It does matter what you intended because
the outcome doesn’t stand up to justify the means to get there.
Best of both worlds?
To play the devil’s advocate if I married the two together
to have a true deontologist-consequentialist union then I would have the follow
the rules explicitly and still come up with the best outcome. So, Jack Bauer
would not be able to kill his way through the world, he would have to incarcerate
or stun the people and take great care from beginning to end. Now… if we were to
do the pick and choose thing, he would kill his way through the world of
criminals and bad guys and if he were to fail, it would only be a temporary setback.
I mean, come on, it is Jack Bauer we are talking about! Then he would just keep
on going until he produced the best consequences.
Fun and games aside, there is divergence between these two
theories and those who hold these viewpoints may also diverge. All
deontologists have a one size fits all approach, and likely the same for
consequentialists because what is to say which action in fact does hold the
most weight, there are places for wiggle room. According to LaFollette the main
goal is to critically think about what we do and why we do it (2007). Our
careful reflection can assist in understanding how to approach practical issues
in an ethical way. If we cannot agree as a society, as a set of one people,
what is the most moral and ethical way to behave, our actions still must be
morally evaluated when it comes to how our actions affect others. Most can
agree on this fact (LaFollette, 2007). Because it is so important how our actions affect
others, this is why I do not feel compelled to be discouraged by how I pick and
choose between the theories. If I am constantly evaluating how to honor others
and still respect myself through the journey and try to have good consequences
after everything is said and done it might be okay that I lack consistency.
Then again, I may be trying to justify my actions.
References:
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA:
Wiley Blackwell
No comments:
Post a Comment