A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

I feel that teaching my children to be good people is one of the most important things I can do.  What is more important than preparing the rising generation to be contributing, respectful, and decent members of society?  Instilling moral and ethical values in my kids is one of my highest priorities. I have noticed that as my children age I use different parenting skills.  When my children were young it was easiest to teach them simple rules; “we don’t take things from people,” “we put our toys away when we are done playing with them,” “we don’t pull the dog’s tail.”  For small children who may not understand all of the intricacies and details of specific situations it is best to teach them simple rules. It is also easiest to discipline when these simple rules are in place: “you need to take a time out because you took your sister’s toy.”  However, as my children started to get a little older I began to teach my them to make good decisions based on the consequences: “you need to put your bike in the garage or the dog will chew on the seat.” In reality, parenting cannot be done exclusively with just one technique.  It is important to help children to understand the importance of rules, but to also understand that our decision and actions have consequences.  

Consequentialism
LaFollette (2007) indicated that there are “two categories of ethical theory that have shaped the contemporary understanding of ethics” (p. 22).  These two theories are consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism contends that “we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best results” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 23).  According to this theory, as we consider our actions and behaviors we must consider the interests of every party affected. Our decisions do not happen in a bubble. When we make a moral decision we should consider the available options and its consequences, and select the option with the best consequences.  It would not be possible, practical, or useful to consider every possible option; thus consequentialist theories should specifically address three variables: which consequences are morally relevant, how much they should influence our decision, and how they enter into the deliberation (LaFollette, 2007). Critics of consequentialism as a theory of ethical reasoning think that it is used too narrowly, and that too few consequences are generally considered.  One classical case critics use to point out the flaws in consequentialism is from last week’s reflection blog. According to the theory of consequentialism, an elderly man standing next to a train track should be pushed on to the track if his death will stop the train, saving the lives of five children further down the track. That would be the best result.

Deontology
Deontology, on the other hand, contends that no matter how good the results of a moral decision may be, some choices are morally forbidden.  For deontologists, what makes a moral decision right is how strictly it conforms to a moral norm. The right should have priority over the good.  If an action is not right, it should not be undertaken, regardless of the good that comes from it (Deontological Ethics, n.d.). Deontologists recognize that at times rules contradict each other and can put a person at loggerheads.  In these circumstances the weightier moral rule would be applied. The challenge confronted by deontologists is to know which rules are weightier. Four strategies have been identified to resolve this conflict. Some claim that the rules never actually conflict, they simply appear to.  Others suggest the rules specify what to do when they conflict. Still others suggest that a meta-rule exists that explains what to do when rules conflict. Lastly, some are not concerned when the rules conflict.  

In some ways I think the discussion of consequentialism and deontology is similar to the legal constructs of malum in se and malum prohibitum.  Malum in se is a Latin phrase that means wrong or evil in itself.  It suggests that an activity is wrong because of the nature of the activity.  For example, killing and stealing are wrong because they are inherently evil. On the other hand, things that are considered malum prohibitum are wrong because a statute or law indicates they are wrong.  For example, building a home without a building permit and jaywalking are malum prohibitum; there is nothing inherently evil about these activities.  Green (2015) said that “No offense, at least in the real world, is wholly malum in se or wholly malum prohibitum” (p. 1). He suggested that the concepts of malum in se and malum prohibitum should be understood as scalar qualities.  For example, a particular offense could be considered 80 percent malum in se and 20 percent malum prohibitum. “Thinking about malum in se and malum prohibitum in this way can help us make a more precise assessment of the moral content of criminal offenses” (Green, 2015, p. 1).  

Perhaps it would be beneficial to balance the ethical debate in a similar way.  Are consequences the best way to weigh the options in ethical decisions? Are rules and norms the best way?  Perhaps striking a balance between the two would be one way to take advantage of the benefits of each theory, but also overcome its weaknesses.  

As for me, I lean toward the deontologist side.  I believe that rules and laws are a critical part of a peaceful society.  I tend to feel it is more important to follow the rules and keep the norms than to seek out the best consequences in a lawless fashion.  However, I also recognize there are times when no rule or norm exists that adequately addresses a circumstance. In those rare instances, the unspoken rule should be followed: that the best outcomes should be sought.

References

Deontological Ethics. (n.d.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#DeoThe

Green, S. P. (2015). The conceptual utility of malum prohibitum. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2690456

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice Of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A634.6.3.RB - What Are Virtues?

Image
LaFollette (2007) suggested that the best way to live a moral life is by cultivating virtues.  Aristotle thought of virtues as character traits and tendencies to act in a particular way (2018).  He thought that living a virtuous life was the key to happiness and a good life.  Additionally, Aristotle suggested that a virtuous person does the appropriate action, does it habitually, enjoys being virtuous, knows that it is virtuous, and knows why it is virtuous (LaFollette, 2007).   Benjamin Franklin had a lifelong commitment to cultivating virtues.  He developed a list of thirteen virtues that he considered were essential to virtuous living.  He also developed a chart he carried around with him that he could use to note when he had not adhered to one of the virtues.  Franklin focused on one virtue each week, so after thirteen weeks he had spent time trying to cultivate each one.  He would then start the process over again.  When Franklin began this program he made numerous marks on
Read more

A632.2.3.RB - Sheena Iyengar: How to Make Choosing Easier

Image
Perhaps you have experienced what I experience on a regular basis.  You are at a restaurant looking at the menu, trying to decide what to order.  All of the options look good, and you cannot decide between the fajitas and the enchiladas. “There are just too many options!” you exclaim in frustration as you decide to simply order the same thing you always do, the chicken burrito. It is said that variety is the spice of life.  As consumers, we generally think that more options is better than few.  “Marketers assume that the more choices they offer, the more likely customers will be able to find just the right thing” (Schwartz, 2006, para. 1).  We have a tendency to believe that where more options are available, we will be able to find something that fits our needs or wants exactly, and we will be more satisfied with our decision.  We will be able to have it our way. However, “research now shows that there can be too much choice; when there is, consumers are less likely to buy anyth
Read more

A634.8.2.RB - Gun Control: What is the Answer?

Image
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in December of 1791 states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (U.S. Const. amend. II).  Although parties from different sides of the debate have argued various interpretations of this constitutional amendment, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the right of an individual to keep and bear arms.  A 2008 Supreme Court case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" (as cited in Brooks, 2017, para. 14).  This controversy has heightened in recent years as high-profile mass murders and school shootings have occurred repeatedly.   The question of how to reduce firearm related deaths is co
Read more